Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 1.5 Caught.on.tape,.but.where.is.the.tape?
videotape. on. July. 22,. 2009.. The. plaintiff,. Olson,. sued. for.
wrongful.termination.
In.discovery.the.tape.was.requested.by.the.plaintiffs,.but.the.
defendants.informed.the.court.that.it.had.been.erased..They.
claimed.protection.from.sanctions.under.the.Safe.Harbor.rule.
because. the. recycling. of. their. digital. videotapes. was. done.
automatically.in.their.normal.course.of.business.(Figure 1.5).
What.is.particularly.interesting.about.this.is.that.the.court.
said.the.defendants.were.or.should.have.been.aware.of.the.
possible.litigation.by.August.11,.2009,.and.the.tape.had.not.
yet.been.overwritten.at.that.time..So.based.on.the.last.case.
we. discussed. one. would. assume. they. should. be. sanctioned.
for.spoliation.of.evidence.
However,.in.this.case.the.court.declined.to.impose.sanc-
tions.absent.evidence.that.the.destruction.was.in.“bad.faith.”.
The.judge.basically.said.that.because.they.did.not.purposely.
spoliate.the.evidence,.there.was.no.justiication.for.sanctions.
The.lesson.here.is.that.different.courts.can.and.will.make.
different. decisions. based. on. the. facts. of. the. case. and. the.
judge's.discretion..Don't.think.this.is.ever.cut.and.dried..It.is.
important.to.read.the.entire.case.sometimes.to.try.to.get.an.
idea.of.what.the.facts.in.the.case.were.and.to.try.to.under-
stand.why.the.court.makes.its.decisions.
