Computer Forensics Docket Sheet

Alleging that the defendant infringed on its motion-picture copyright, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, attorneys' fees and costs, and money damages. After uncovering the defendant's alleged activities by tracing his Internet protocol address, the plaintiff was granted access to the defendant's computer and hired a Kroll Ontrack computer-forensics expert to conduct an examination. The expert determined that, after wiping all data off of his hard drive, the defendant reinstalled the operating system just 16 days after the defendant received notice of the lawsuit. As a result, it was impossible to determine whether the motion picture or related software was on the computer prior to the investigation. In defending his actions, the defendant claimed that he wiped the drive in preparation for selling it to another individual. The court declared: 'This argument does not obviate his duty to preserve the computer's memory. ' His failure to preserve this evidence places the fault for its destruction squarely upon Davis.' Although the court determined an adverse-inference instruction would be appropriate, it did not issue the instruction, because the case was not being tried to a jury. As an alternative, the plaintiff proposed that the court grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court found that such a remedy would be too severe and noted that it would instead take the defendant's 'willful destruction of evidence into consideration at the time of trial.' Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Davis, 2005 WL 3303861 (E.D. Pa. Dec 2, 2005).

The plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages, claiming that the defendant sold products that allowed users to play illegal copies of the plaintiff's PlayStation video games. After receiving a cease-and-desist letter from the plaintiff's attorneys, the defendant signed the letter and agreed to an injunction prohibiting the marketing, sale and distribution of the products. Although the defendant removed the products from his Web site, he continued to sell them. After confronting the defendant about his violation of the previous agreement, the parties executed a consent judgment against the defendant for an undetermined amount that was to be based on further discovery. As a part of the discovery provisions, the defendant agreed that he would not destroy any documents or computer files reflecting sales of his products. During discovery, the defendant's hard drive was examined by a computer-forensics expert, who determined that thousands of files had been deleted from the hard drive just days before production of the hard drive. The deleted files included numerous documents with titles indicating that they were sales records. Finding that a 'significant' statutory-damage award was warranted under the circumstances, the court awarded more than $6 million in damages. The court stated, '[the defendant] intentionally and in bad faith violated the terms of the Consent Judgment as well as his discovery obligations under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.' Sony Computer Entertainment Am., Inc. v. Filipiak, 2005 WL 3556676 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 27, 2005).