Destruction of Disk Contents May Lead to a Default Judgment

08 December 2008 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

A Federal Magistrate Judge recommended the defendants be defaulted and pay attorneys fee in Gutman v. Klein sends a clear message for litigation throughout the US. Regardless of whether the Federal Judge adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, it is clear that we will see more headlines like this in the future in state and federal courts. Spoliation of relevant evidence is a serious problem whether the evidence is electronic or otherwise.

What Did the Defendants Do?

Apparently in this 5 year lawsuit the defendants were well-aware of that there was relevant evidence on one of their laptop computers. So the while the plaintiff’s expert waited about two hours at the defendant’s residence to get the laptop, apparently the defendant destroyed the contents of the laptop hard drive. When the laptop was turned over for copying “...it was hot to the touch and a screw was missing from its hard drive enclosure.” Later it was determined that the defendant wiped off relevant evidence from the laptop hard drive by manually deleting files, and reinstalled Windows XP to try to cover his tracks.

Role of Forensic Review

My friend Erin Nealy Cox who is a Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel at Stroz Friedberg sent a story about this case since the Magistrate Judge appointed Stroz Friedberg as a Forensic Expert to analyze the laptop hard drive. Ultimately the Stroz Friedberg Expert Report demonstrated what the defendant had done. It seems clear that intentional destruction of the contents of the laptop hard drive was spoliation, and since +95% of all information is now electronic it seems likely that we will see more cases where parties intentionally destroy relevant evidence. Also it seems clear that courts will appoint Forensic Experts and Special Masters to assist them in analyzing electronic evidence. Having served as a Special Master in cases for more than 20 years it clear that a Special Master can represent the Court best in these types of cases where the parties’ experts cannot since they offer opinions generally in favor of their clients.
 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services

Insights

PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.