Litigating Computer Forensic Evidence

Stephen D. Milbrath Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A. The Divide Between State and Federal Courts on the Duty to Preserve Evidence

The Federal Duty to Preserve
Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F. Supp.2d 1274 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2009)
Sanctions may be imposed against a litigant who is on notice that information in its possession is relevant to potential litigation and nevertheless destroys such information.
Optowave, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81345 (M.D. Fla. Nov 7, 2006)

Elements In Federal Court
A Potential Litigation
A Legal or Contract Duty to Preserve Relevant Evidence
Destruction of the Evidence
Significant impairment of the ability to prove the Case
Causation
“ bad faith”
Damages (if you are suing a 3 rd party)

The Source of the Court’s Power
Inherent power to manage the court’s own affairs
Applicable law
Contract

THE LOGIC OF THE FEDERAL VIEW
Zubulake V. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D. N. Y. 2003): A common law duty to preserve arises when you know of potential litigation . That duty extends to evidence of relevance to future litigation
Sedona Conference Best Practices: 2003-2005: A duty to preserve arises for reasonably foreseeable litigation, but that duty does not require extraordinary measures

The Different State Court Approach
Electric Machinery Enterprises, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., 416 B.R. 801 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2009): There is NO Florida common law duty to preserve evidence before litigation has commenced
Exceptions: contract or statute
There is some support in Florida for the imposition of an adverse inference where critical evidence is destroyed intentionally even where there was no duty to preserve

Sanctions Without a Duty ?
Golden Yachts, Inc v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2006): There is no common law duty to preserve prior to suit BUT an adverse inference may arise where damaging evidence is destroyed in anticipation of suit.
Judge Williams In EME: Suggests he would follow Golden Yachts and draw an adverse inference but for the fact that it was not necessary: Plaintiff met its burden anyway.

The Resulting Lack of Certainty
If you assume the case will be litigated in federal court, you have a categorical duty to preserve potentially important evidence
If you assume that you will be sued in state court, there is no common law duty to preserve evidence
But your client might still suffer an adverse inference if it destroys evidence in bad faith and not pursuant to a routine document destruction protocol
This would suggest the continued importance of pre-suit preservation of evidence demands

Litigating Computer Forensic Evidence

by isighttech on Jun 28, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 14

Statistics

Litigating Computer Forensic Evidence — Presentation Transcript