Case Summary
Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. Dell, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26964 (D. Utah Mar. 27, 2009).
A defendant’s email preservation system that consisted of instructing employees to preserve email of long term value on their local computers, coupled with “very little evidence compared to what would be expected,” led the court to conclude that the “safe harbor” of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) did not apply and that the defendant should be sanctioned for spoliation.
Plaintiff in a patent infringement action claimed a defendant reverse engineered plaintiff’s patented programs for solving a defect in floppy disk controllers. Plaintiff sought sanctions against the defendant for spoliation when discovery from the defendant did not provide any evidence that the defendant had infringed upon plaintiff’s patents. In asserting spoliation, plaintiff relied on email and other evidence obtained by plaintiff in other litigation and from other defendants. The defendant countered that the lack of additional email was understandable because the defendant’s email servers were “not designed for archival purposes” and employees had been instructed to locally preserve only email “of long term value.”
The court held that the defendant’s practice of having employees archive email did “not establish the good-faith nature” of the defendant’s data management practices. Also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) did not provide a “safe harbor” for email apparently not saved by employees because the fact that the defendant had backed-up servers on which it stored financial data demonstrated that the defendant “does know how to protect data it regards as important.”
“Indisputably,” according to the court, “we have very little evidence compared to what would be expected.” Computer and component manufacturers such as the defendant “were sensitized” to the floppy disk controller errors due to class actions over the errors in 1999-2000, and the defendant should have been preserving evidence related to those errors since then. However, it was clear to the court that the defendant’s “lack of a retention policy and irresponsible data retention practices are responsible for the loss of significant data.” The court concluded that sanctions against the defendant were appropriate once prejudice to plaintiff from the loss was determined following additional briefing by the parties.
<< Click here to go backPlaintiff in a patent infringement action claimed a defendant reverse engineered plaintiff’s patented programs for solving a defect in floppy disk controllers. Plaintiff sought sanctions against the defendant for spoliation when discovery from the defendant did not provide any evidence that the defendant had infringed upon plaintiff’s patents. In asserting spoliation, plaintiff relied on email and other evidence obtained by plaintiff in other litigation and from other defendants. The defendant countered that the lack of additional email was understandable because the defendant’s email servers were “not designed for archival purposes” and employees had been instructed to locally preserve only email “of long term value.”
The court held that the defendant’s practice of having employees archive email did “not establish the good-faith nature” of the defendant’s data management practices. Also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) did not provide a “safe harbor” for email apparently not saved by employees because the fact that the defendant had backed-up servers on which it stored financial data demonstrated that the defendant “does know how to protect data it regards as important.”
“Indisputably,” according to the court, “we have very little evidence compared to what would be expected.” Computer and component manufacturers such as the defendant “were sensitized” to the floppy disk controller errors due to class actions over the errors in 1999-2000, and the defendant should have been preserving evidence related to those errors since then. However, it was clear to the court that the defendant’s “lack of a retention policy and irresponsible data retention practices are responsible for the loss of significant data.” The court concluded that sanctions against the defendant were appropriate once prejudice to plaintiff from the loss was determined following additional briefing by the parties.
