The SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN CONSTRUCTION CASES

Title: The Short Life of a Tort: A Brief History of the Independent Cause of Action for Spoliation of Evidence in California Issue: Oct Year: 2005

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT:

HOT TOPIC ISSUE: SPOILATION. General Liability Track, Session 3 Fifth Annual General Liability & Workers Compensation Seminar

In , Judge Scheindlin almost single-handedly put e-discovery

COMMENTARY. The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework. Case Background

Brookshire Brothers, LTD. v. Aldridge, ---S.W.3d----, 2014 WL (Tex. July 3, 2014)

Don t Get Burned: Proper Implementation of the Litigation Hold Process is Your Best SPF (Spoliation Protection Factor)

Case 5:13-cv CAR Document 69 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

SPOLIATION AND SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE: RECENT CASES ARE MAKING THE RULES CLEARER AND TOUGHER. By Christopher S. Hickey

Case Theory and Themes. Preparing to Present Defense. Narrow Legal and Factual Issues

DOCUMENT RETENTION ISSUES FOR IN- HOUSE COUNSEL

Spoliation: New Law, New Dangers. ABA National Legal Malpractice Conference

Record Retention Program Overview

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY ISSUES ZUBULAKE REVISITED: SIX YEARS LATER

NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1

Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It

R in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers

Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016

Records & Information Management Best Practices for the 21st Century

Preservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas

E-Discovery. Help or Hindrance? NEW FEDERAL RULES ON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

The Pension Committee Revisited One Year Later

SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN OCEAN AND INLAND MARINE CLAIMS. Spoliation of evidence has been defined as the destruction or material

November by: G. Gabriel Zorogastua

A Real Safe Harbor: The Long-Awaited Proposed FRCP Rule 37(e), Its Workings, and Its Guidance for ESI Preservation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

E-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements

Wisconsin Digital Government Summit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Issued: March 30, 2017 Responsible Official: General Counsel Responsible Office: Office of Legal Affairs. Policy Statement

Overview of Open Government in Washington State:

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY Practices & Checklist

Spoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums

RULES OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARDS

LITIGATION HOLDS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Substantial new amendments to the Federal

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. APPLIED TELEMATICS, INC. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. No. Civ.A Sept. 17, 1996.

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE ACT

THERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]

Spoliation in South Carolina

A MODEL ACT FOR REGULATING THE USE OF WEARABLE BODY CAMERAS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

SPOLIATOR BEWARE: DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE HAS ITS PRICE by Alan H. Collier Felix Avila

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. WILLIAM I. KOCH and WILLIAM A. PRESLEY, Plaintiffs, v. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No.

Deposition Survival Guide

Case 1:09-cv BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5. Plaintiff, : :

By Kevin M. Smith and John Gregory Robinson. Reprinted by permission of Connecticut Lawyer. 16 Connecticut Lawyer July 2011 Visit

Best Practices in Litigation Holds and Document Preservation. Presented by AABANY Litigation Committee

5/9/2017. Selected Recent Developments in Case Law Document Retention or Document Destruction: You Decide

Case 2:10-cv ES-SCM Document 42 Filed 03/25/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 338 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY BASICS. John K. Rubiner and Bonita D. Moore 1. I. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Is Virtually Everything

Expert Q&A on Proving Intent for Spoliation Sanctions Under FRCP 37(e)(2): Developing Case Law

Document Retention and Archival Policy

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1

SPOLIATION. What to do when the state loses or destroys evidence

Patent Litigation and Licensing

Rules of Procedure and Evidence*

Document Retention and Archival Policy

PSFOA - Public Records Requests 3/12/2014. March 12, Tammy White Assistant City Attorney for the City of Kent. Objectives

ALI-ABA Course of Study Mass Litigation May 29-31, 2008 Charleston, South Carolina. Materials on Electronic Discovery

Case 1:08-cr FB Document 187 Filed 09/25/09 Page 1 of 6

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions

Lowe v Fairmont Manor Co., LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 33358(U) December 19, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Cynthia S.

Rules of evidence (including cross-border evidence) in civil proceedings Q&A: Russian Federation

2019 PA Super 94 : : : : : : : : :

INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT

Case 2:03-cv MJP Document 285 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 1 of 9

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. ASSEMBLY, No th LEGISLATURE. Sponsored by: Assemblywoman HOLLY SCHEPISI District 39 (Bergen and Passaic)

Impact of Three Amendments to the Federal Rules related to e-discovery

TYPES OF MONETARY DAMAGES

RULE CHANGE 2018(06) COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Case 5:15-cv HRL Document 88 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Honorable Judge Thomas Ramsberger 545 First Avenue North, Room 200 St. Petersburg, FL JURY TRIAL WEEKS * ALL ONE (1) WEEK DOCKETS *

Administrative Appeal Procedures. Effective July 1, 2015

2017 REVIEW OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT (FIPPA) COMMENTS FROM MANITOBA OMBUDSMAN

CHAPTER 121 STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS

Spoliation Law in Georgia

PRACTICE DIRECTION [ ] DISCLOSURE PILOT FOR THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS

POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 (PACE) CODE E CODE OF PRACTICE ON AUDIO RECORDING INTERVIEWS WITH SUSPECTS

TGCI LA. FRCP 12/1/15 Changes Key ESI Ones. December Robert D. Brownstone, Esq.

Cross-Border Evidentiary Considerations When Confronting Loss or Destruction of Evidence in Canada

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Procedures and Guidelines

Security Video Surveillance Policy

RECENT SPOLIATION CASES A CASE LAW REVIEW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Best Practices for Preservation of ESI John Rosenthal

Document Retention and Archival Policy

Vermont Bar Association 55 th Mid-Year Meeting

Professor Sara Anne Hook, M.L.S., M.B.A., J.D AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 14, 2011

Records Retention Policy and Practice

Case 1:13-cv RML Document 53 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 778

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division I Opinion by: JUDGE MÁRQUEZ Dailey and Román, JJ., concur. Announced: April 6, 2006

October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

Observations on The Sedona Principles

BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004

CHAPTER 5.14 PUBLIC RECORDS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Imported Food Control Act 1992

Transcription:

What is it?

The SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. When Spoliation has occurred there are two possible consequences: 1. In New Jersey, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference, which essentially allows a jury to presume that the evidence the spoliator destroyed or otherwise concealed would have been unfavorable to him or her. 2. New Jersey does not recognize a separate tort action for intentional spoliation of evidence as spoliation is remediable under the existing tort action for fraudulent concealment. 2

1.) Spoliation Inference The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence destroyed in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the fact finder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. 3

Because Spoliation does not require bad faith or intent to destroy harmful evidence, it is best to take a Conservative Approach when deciding what evidence to preserve. Negligent document retention procedures or negligent execution of good document retention procedures can lead to spoliation. Additionally, destruction of good evidence may not subject you to spoliation sanctions, but it can make your case weaker. 4

2.) Elements of Fraudulent Concealment of Evidence 1. The Defendant had a legal obligation to disclose evidence in connection with an existing or pending litigation; 2. That the evidence was material to the litigation; 3. That the Plaintiff could not have obtained access to the evidence from another source; 4. That the Defendant unintentionally withheld, altered or destroyed the evidence with purpose to disrupt the litigation; and 5. That the Plaintiff was damaged in the underlying action by having to rely on an evidential record that did not contain the evidence that the Defendant concealed. If successful, compensatory damages and punitive damages can be awarded. 5

The Duty to Preserve Evidence Should be Triggered by: 1.Receipt of a Demand Letter 2.Service of Tort Notice 3.Preservation letter 4.Service of a Complaint 5.An Accident or Incident 6

What Evidence will need to be Gathered? 1. Who - will be the relevant individuals to this case 2. What evidence they may have or be in control of (emails, texts, social media posts, physical documents, etc.) 3. Where is the evidence physically stored in a closet or file cabinet or is it electronically stored (computer, cell phone, cloud storage, flash drive, hard drive, website, etc.) 4. When the duty to preserve evidence is triggered upon an accident or occurrence or when litigation is reasonably foreseeable 7

Potentially Relevant Evidence : If it appears that it may have the tendency to help prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, i.e. it could potentially make one of the elements of the case likelier or not to be true, it is potentially relevant. There is no duty to preserve everything. HOWEVER, it is better to preserve than destroy. Review with counsel. There is no duty to create evidence. 8

Types of Evidence: 1. Testimony: e.g., oral or written statements, such as video and/or audio recordings or an affidavit; and 2. Exhibits: e.g., physical objects, documents (correspondence) and electronic documents (emails, texts, social media posts); and 3. Documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding. 9

Preservation of Surveillance Video evidence is crucial to avoid spoliation. It should be determined what photographic and/or audio/video evidence exists and it should be secured as soon as possible. 10

11

Beyond Emails & Excel Files: computers, mobile phones, server/cloud storage, flash drives, networks, external hard drives, company website and archived back up discs 12

Metadata is a term for hidden text, formatting codes, formulae and other hidden information associated with an electronic file. Metadata must be preserved to provide the following: Confirmation of Authenticity; and Context and Identity to files; and Additional information that may be relative evidence. 13

Inaccessible Files You must preserve: Backup tapes Archival data Legacy data Deleted information 14

Tip #1. Preserve evidence in its entirety; not just what may appear relevant. Tip #2. Attempt to get the potential evidence into your possession or obtain an agreement that the evidence will be preserved and that no destructive testing will occur without notice. Destructive Testing and Notice: Once the duty to preserve evidence is triggered, notice must be given prior to destruction or destructive testing. Other interested parties must be given the opportunity to inspect the evidence prior to destruction. 15

Tip #3. Have a secured evidence locker or evidence room. If there is a piece of evidence that is too large, be sure to document its location and the condition. Tip #4. Work with defense counsel. A protective order can be obtained before suit is filed. A litigation hold letter to other parties or those who may possess evidence. Tip #5. Experts should also be notified that destructive testing should not be performed without prior approval and notice. 16

Tip #6. Ignorance surrounding duties, policies and procedures is insufficient justification for spoliation. Parties have a duty to ensure those in charge of the evidence are provided with instructions and tools and that the evidence is secure. Tip #7. It is not just the insured s job: individual managers, employees, IT staff, and others also have a duty to preserve evidence. 17

Tip #8. You must excuse your counsel for nagging you about preserving evidence. Attorneys face their own legal liability and potential sanctions for failing to advise clients to preserve evidence. 18

Voluntary Undertaking Records that have been created and kept in the course of business, or for your own benefit must be preserved (assuming litigation is foreseeable or initiated). 19

Contract, Agreement or Statute The Insured may contract with a Third Party company to maintain files that will be potentially relevant evidence. 20

Potential Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence 21

Sanctions The sanction for Spoliation of Evidence serves three goals: 1. To make whole, as nearly as possible, the litigant whose cause of action has been impaired by the absence of crucial evidence. 2. To punish the wrongdoer; and 3. To deter others from such conducts. The focus in selecting the proper sanction is evening the playing field or rectifying the prejudice caused by the spoliation so as to place the parties in equipoise. The sanction of dismissal will normally be ordered only when no lesser sanction will suffice to erase the prejudice suffered by the non-delinquent party. 22

IMPLICATIONS 23

1. Dismissal though RARE! 24

2. Barring of Evidence Key evidence can be barred, which is sometimes paramount to the dismissal of the claim. 25

3. Evidentiary Presumptions The jury may make adverse inferences 26

4. Monetary Penalties The party and/or their attorney can have monetary sanctions imposed by the court. No showing of bad faith is required for sanctions. 5. Independent Legal Liability A separate claim for Fraudulent Concealment of Evidence may be filed seeking compensator and/or punitive damages. 27

QUESTIONS 28