View entire case on lexis.com...

Defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's spoliation claim was denied because a computer forensic expert's affidavit provided support for plaintiff's theory that defendant, prior to returning plaintiff's laptop and leaving to work for a competitor, downloaded files from the laptop, took action to overwrite the hard drive, and then copied some files back on to the hard drive.

Defendant executed a confidentiality agreement when she was hired by plaintiff, but plaintiff ender defendant's employment because she failed to sign a formal non-competition agreement. A computer forensic expert examined the laptop that defendant returned to plaintiff following the termination of defendant's employment, but the expert was unable to retrieve email, internet, or user-created Microsoft Office files. He reported that a new operating system had been installed on the laptop shortly before it was returned. Plaintiff filed an action against defendant that included a cause of action for spoliation, and defendant sought summary judgment.

The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the spoliation claim. Ohio recognized intentional spoliation of evidence as an independent cause of action, and the forensic analysis of the laptop used by defendant raised a material issue of fact as to whether defendant willfully destroyed evidence to disrupt plaintiff's case. The forensic analysis indicated that some event – such as reinstallation of an operating system or use of a wiping utility – led to most of the data on the laptop being overwritten. The court concluded there was "some evidentiary support" for plaintiff’s theory that defendant "downloaded files from the laptop hard drive, took some action to overwrite the hard drive, and then copied some files back on to the hard drive."