E-Discovery Resources  

Go Back   E-Discovery Resources > General E-Discovery resources > Electronic discovery news
Home Forums Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2008, 01:12 AM
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 838
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Liability for State Law Spoliation Cause of Action Does Not Result Simply from Failur

Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2704859 (N.D. Ohio July 7, 2008)
In this breach of contract litigation, the court had previously granted plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add a state law cause of action for spoliation of evidence based on defendant’s failure to implement a litigation hold. Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (N.D. Ohio 2008). In this decision, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the spoliation claim, in light of genuine disputes over several material facts.
In an interesting passage, the court opines that liability for a state law spoliation of evidence cause of action does not result simply from the failure to implement a litigation hold:

First, I agree with Chrysler that failure to implement a litigation hold is not an element of a spoliation claim. Nor, in my view, would such implementation be an affirmative defense to such a claim. While whether a party implemented or failed to implement an implementation hold, or whether its directive to its employees was comprehensive and sufficient might be evidence of culpable intent, no liability results simply from either failure to implement a litigation hold or defects in its scope and substance.

In this case, to be sure, a jury could find that no litigation hold was in place for the year between Chrysler's initial awareness of possible litigation and filing of this suit. But that, alone, is not sufficient to impose liability on Chrysler for spoliation of evidence. A jury might also conclude, if it credited Schmidt's version of the insufficiency, that the litigation hold, whatever it was, was not sufficiently specific and comprehensive to ensure retrieval and retention of pertinent data. But on the basis of the present record, that's a decision for the jury, and not for me to make by granting Schmidt's motion for summary judgment.
A copy of the full decision is available here.



More...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0