Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
of.which.set.important.precedents.for.the.treatment.of.elec-
tronic.evidence.and.electronic.discovery.
In. this. case. the. judge. ordered. an. adverse. inference.
instruction.to.the.jury.telling.them.to.assume.that.the.e-mails.
that.were.not.produced.by.the.defendant,.UBS,.would.have.
negatively. impacted. their. case.. She. said. that. the. defense.
counsel.was.partly.to.blame.for.not.locating.and.producing.
those.e-mails.for.several.reasons..One.was.that.they.failed.
to.continue.to.monitor.their.clients.and.ensure.their.clients.
understood. that. they. were. required. to. preserve. relevant.
e-mails. as. evidence. under. a. litigation. hold. even. though. it.
went.on.for.years..The.defendants.were.required.to.pay.$29.
million.in.damages.
1.2.3.4.5. Medcorp,. Inc.. v.. Pinpoint. Tech.,. Inc.. (D.. Colo..
6/15/10). In.this.case.the.court.found.that.the.plaintiff.will-
fully.spoliated.43.hard.drives..A.special.master.was.assigned.
to.assist.the.court.with.the.discovery.and.preservation.of.rel-
evant. electronic. evidence.. He. found. that. the. plaintiffs. had.
destroyed.43.hard.drives.that.most.likely.contained.important.
evidence.for.the.case.
The.special.master.ordered.adverse.inference.to.the.jury.
suggesting.that.the.court.inform.the.jury.to.assume.that.the.
evidence. that. was. destroyed. would. have. adversely. affected.
the.plaintiff's.case..The.judge.agreed.and.also.ordered.plain-
tiff.to.pay.all.defendant's.expenses.to.the.tune.of.a.payment.
of.$89,365.88.
1.2.3.5. .KCH.Servs.,.Inc..v..Vanaire,.Inc..
(W..D..Ky..7/22/09)—Trigger.to.
Reasonably.Expect.Litigation
In. this. case. the. plaintiff. KCH. Services. was. the. maker. of. a.
software. application.. They. learned. that. Vanaire. was. using.
their. application. without. having. licensed. it,. and. they. called.
and.spoke.to.one.of.the.vice.presidents.at.Vanaire..The.per-
son.from.KCH.informed.the.Vanaire.VP.that.they.had.reason.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search