Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Computer Forensics Docket Sheet
Court Issues Spoliation
Sanctions for 'Crashed' Hard Drive
In a case alleging civil-rights violations and infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff sought to explore claims about the authorship of a harassing letter he received from a city employee. The court initially denied the plaintiff's request to compel inspection of the city's computers but ordered the defendant to preserve 'everything.' The city assured the court that it would abide by the preservation order, but after a subsequent court order for production of three of its employees' hard drives, the defendant acknowledged that it had destroyed one of them. The defendant explained that the hard drive in question had been inadvertently discarded after the user's laptop 'crashed.' However, at a hearing before the court the city indicated that it found the laptop, with no explanation other than that it 'appeared.' Unsatisfied with the city's explanation, the plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions and default judgment. In turn, the defendant moved for clarification of the court's previous order to allow inspection or, in the alternative, for a protective order. The court found that the defendant had discarded the laptop with notice of its potential relevance, causing delay and additional expense to the plaintiff. While reserving judgment as to whether the defendant's actions warranted terminating sanctions, the court ordered monetary sanctions against the defendant in the amount of the plaintiff's attorney fees and traveling costs associated with bringing the motion. It also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's expert's fees and to bear the cost of a court-appointed special master. The court declined to consider the defendant's motion for clarification, directing the defendant to seek direction from the special master. Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 2007 WL 878575 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2007).
Court Issues Adverse Jury Instruction
Where Plaintiff Disposed of Evidence
In a gender-discrimination suit, the defendant brought a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence, specifically seeking dismissal of the suit because the plaintiff disposed of her home computer after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim against the defendant. The plaintiff's home computer contained evidence relating to her lawsuit against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that she disposed of her computer after the hard drive crashed and her brother was unable to repair it. The court held that sanctions were appropriate because the computer contained evidence directly related to the plaintiff's claims and her efforts to mitigate her damages by finding another job after leaving defendant's company. The court determined that she disposed of the computer with a 'culpable state of mind' and that an adverse-inference jury instruction at trial was proper. Teague v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 1041191 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2007).
e-Discovery Docket Sheet was written by Michele C.S. Lange, a staff attorney with Kroll Ontrack. Lange has published numerous articles and speaks regularly on the topics of electronic discovery, computer forensics and technology's role in the law. Information in these summaries is taken from the Kroll Ontrack monthly E-Discovery Case Law Update and Computer Forensics newsletters, which may be accessed at www.krollontrack.com. Lange is a member of e-Discovery Law & Strategy's Board of Editors, and can be reached at [email protected].
Court Issues Spoliation
Sanctions for 'Crashed' Hard Drive
In a case alleging civil-rights violations and infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff sought to explore claims about the authorship of a harassing letter he received from a city employee. The court initially denied the plaintiff's request to compel inspection of the city's computers but ordered the defendant to preserve 'everything.' The city assured the court that it would abide by the preservation order, but after a subsequent court order for production of three of its employees' hard drives, the defendant acknowledged that it had destroyed one of them. The defendant explained that the hard drive in question had been inadvertently discarded after the user's laptop 'crashed.' However, at a hearing before the court the city indicated that it found the laptop, with no explanation other than that it 'appeared.' Unsatisfied with the city's explanation, the plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions and default judgment. In turn, the defendant moved for clarification of the court's previous order to allow inspection or, in the alternative, for a protective order. The court found that the defendant had discarded the laptop with notice of its potential relevance, causing delay and additional expense to the plaintiff. While reserving judgment as to whether the defendant's actions warranted terminating sanctions, the court ordered monetary sanctions against the defendant in the amount of the plaintiff's attorney fees and traveling costs associated with bringing the motion. It also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's expert's fees and to bear the cost of a court-appointed special master. The court declined to consider the defendant's motion for clarification, directing the defendant to seek direction from the special master. Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 2007 WL 878575 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2007).
Court Issues Adverse Jury Instruction
Where Plaintiff Disposed of Evidence
In a gender-discrimination suit, the defendant brought a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence, specifically seeking dismissal of the suit because the plaintiff disposed of her home computer after filing an
e-Discovery Docket Sheet was written by Michele C.S. Lange, a staff attorney with Kroll Ontrack. Lange has published numerous articles and speaks regularly on the topics of electronic discovery, computer forensics and technology's role in the law. Information in these summaries is taken from the Kroll Ontrack monthly E-Discovery Case Law Update and Computer Forensics newsletters, which may be accessed at www.krollontrack.com. Lange is a member of e-Discovery Law & Strategy's Board of Editors, and can be reached at [email protected].
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.