Electronic Discovery and Computer Forensics Case List - Kroll Ontrack

failed to issue litigation holds and preserve relevant evidence, destroyed employees’ computers
and failed to search disaster recovery tapes. The defendant argued a litigation hold was properly
issued, there was no duty to preserve employees’ computers, the plaintiff’s motion was untimely
and the plaintiff failed to provide proof regarding the disaster recovery tapes claim. Despite finding
the plaintiff brought his motion for spoliation more than five months after discovery’s conclusion,
the court denied the defendant’s argument that the motion was untimely because the dispositive
motions had not yet been ruled on. The court then determined that the duty to preserve arose
when the plaintiff sent a letter informing the defendant that he had consulted attorneys regarding
the matter. Next, the court held that the defendant failed to issue litigation holds to key players and,
as a result, three computers were discarded in violation of the preservation duty. The court
determined that, while the defendant did not act in bad faith, it acted willfully when it intentionally
destroyed the computers and e-mails. Finding only one of the destroyed computers contained
relevant evidence, the court issued an adverse jury instruction for the evidence contained on that
particular computer. Finally, the court allowed the plaintiff to compile a list of expenses incurred in
filing the instant motion, excluding attorney’s fees because the plaintiff was pro se.
� Williams v. Long, 2008 WL 4848362 (D.Md. Nov. 7, 2008). In this employment compensation
dispute, the plaintiffs filed for conditional class action certification and submitted several affidavits
and printed webpages from official websites, consisting of case search results and a copy of a
similar complaint in support of the motion. Citing Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., Magistrate Judge
Paul W. Grimm stated that accepting electronically stored information as evidence implicates a
series of “evidentiary hurdles” that must be cleared, including relevancy and authenticity.
Magistrate Judge Grimm held that since the webpages were printed from government websites,
they were self-authenticating, “official publications,” and thus clear the authentication hurdle.
Finding the webpages authentic and relevant to the issue of class certification, the court turned to
the issue of hearsay. Finding that the requirements for the hearsay exception for public records
were met, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to conditionally certify the class.
� Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2008 WL 4595175 (D.Md. Oct. 15, 2008). In this
collective employment action, the plaintiffs raised issues regarding numerous discovery and
supplemental interrogatory requests. The defendants objected to these requests with, “boilerplate,
non-particularized objections.” Frustrated with the party’s inability to approach discovery
responsibly, Chief Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm scheduled an in-court hearing to discuss the
discovery violations and issued this opinion to explain concerns and instruct counsel on how to
reach resolution. Judge Grimm stated that the failure to abide by Rule 26(g), requiring
particularized facts for a discovery objection, was one reason for the excessive costs of discovery.
He also stated that, “discovery must be initiated and responded to responsibly, in accordance with
the letter and spirit of the discovery rules, to achieve a proper purpose, and be proportional to what
is at issue in the litigation, and if it is not, the judge is expected to impose appropriate sanctions to
punish and deter.” Due to the lack of record establishing an estimated amount in controversy, the
court ordered the parties to meet and confer in good faith to: estimate a likely range of provable
damages to quantify a “discovery budge” that is proportional to what is at stake in the case, discuss
the additional discovery sought by the plaintiffs and attempt to reach an agreement, and provide
the court with a status report indentifying any unresolved issues.
� Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D.Md. Sept. 30, 2008). In this
dispute alleging multiple violations of the Lanham Act, the plaintiff sought sanctions, asserting the
defendant engaged in discovery abuses and spoliation. The defendant claimed they were unable to
provide the communications at issue, possibly due to their e-mail retention policy, but claimed that
116