Computer Forensics Docket Sheet

An attorney appealed a sanctions award prohibiting him from appearing before the district court. During discovery, the court ordered the attorney's client to immediately turn over his computer to a court-appointed recipient. A computer-forensics expert examined the computer and found that e-mail had been deleted on the morning the computer was handed over. The expert subsequently stated that he had recovered 300 e-mails that were moved and may have been archived rather than deleted. The district court determined that the attorney had instructed his client to 'open the computer, turn it on and to look at 'what was in there.” In sanctioning the attorney, the court found that the attorney 'had been 'untruthful to the court directly and by omission,' had deliberately and intentionally impeded discovery and violated the court's order, and had engaged in the spoliation of evidence that would not have been discovered without the services of an expert.' On appeal, the court reversed the award on the grounds that the attorney's due-process rights had been violated because the attorney was not provided with sufficient notice of a hearing at which sanctions might be considered. Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006).

In a case involving a trade-secret theft action, the plaintiff sought, and the court issued, an injunction against the defendant. The injunction required the defendant to return hard copy files, electronic files, computer disks and other computer storage media relating to the plaintiff's business. In addition, the court ordered a third party to make her personal computer available to the plaintiff for forensic examination by an expert. The expert was to determine whether the plaintiff's material existed on the computer and whether e-mails the defendant had sent to the third party's address were forwarded, altered or used. The court permitted the expert to copy any of the plaintiff's material on the computer and then delete all such material from the computer. Finally, the court authorized the defendant and the third party to have an independent forensics expert attend the inspection. AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield, 2006 WL 60547 (Fla.Cir.Ct. Jan. 4, 2006).

Sanctions Awarded Against Attorney for
e-Evidence Spoliation Reversed on Due Process Grounds

An attorney appealed a sanctions award prohibiting him from appearing before the district court. During discovery, the court ordered the attorney's client to immediately turn over his computer to a court-appointed recipient. A computer-forensics expert examined the computer and found that e-mail had been deleted on the morning the computer was handed over. The expert subsequently stated that he had recovered 300 e-mails that were moved and may have been archived rather than deleted. The district court determined that the attorney had instructed his client to 'open the computer, turn it on and to look at 'what was in there.” In sanctioning the attorney, the court found that the attorney 'had been 'untruthful to the court directly and by omission,' had deliberately and intentionally impeded discovery and violated the court's order, and had engaged in the spoliation of evidence that would not have been discovered without the services of an expert.' On appeal, the court reversed the award on the grounds that the attorney's due-process rights had been violated because the attorney was not provided with sufficient notice of a hearing at which sanctions might be considered. Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006).

In a case involving a trade-secret theft action, the plaintiff sought, and the court issued, an injunction against the defendant. The injunction required the defendant to return hard copy files, electronic files, computer disks and other computer storage media relating to the plaintiff's business. In addition, the court ordered a third party to make her personal computer available to the plaintiff for forensic examination by an expert. The expert was to determine whether the plaintiff's material existed on the computer and whether e-mails the defendant had sent to the third party's address were forwarded, altered or used. The court permitted the expert to copy any of the plaintiff's material on the computer and then delete all such material from the computer. Finally, the court authorized the defendant and the third party to have an independent forensics expert attend the inspection. AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield, 2006 WL 60547 (Fla.Cir.Ct. Jan. 4, 2006).