The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
W.D. Tenn.: Loss of Email During Conversion Not Sanctioned
September 14, 2019
Yesterday, Judge Thomas L. Parker issued a decision, Builders Insulation of Tenn. v. S. Energy Solutions, No. 2:17-cv-02668-TLP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155921 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 12, 2019) denying the Plaintiff's renewed motion for sanctions and overruling objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
The Plaintiffs objected to the magistrate judge's determination of when the duty to preserve arose. Judge Parker ruled that the interactions of a defendant during his firing with the attorney for the Plaintiff (which included requests for documents and threats of litigation) did not trigger a duty to preserve. "The mere mention of litigation or termination in seeking to get business records from an employee, in such unclear circumstances, was not enough here to raise the duty to preserve at the time of Thom Davis's [the Defendant] termination." Id. at *7-8. The Court consequently did not fault the Defendant for its subsequent destruction of business records.
The Defendants lost emails from its GoDaddy.com accounts when converting them after the suit was filed. The Plaintiff challenged the magistrate judge's finding that that the Defendants' deletion of emails was no more than negligent, but Judge Parker agreed with the magistrate judge's holding. "Although Plaintiff is correct in its assertion that switching email accounts is a deliberate act, the evidence here suggests that Defendants did not understand the effect switching accounts would have on the emails in the GoDaddy.com accounts." Id. at *12. When the Defendants migrated from GoDaddy.com to Bluehost, they unexpectedly found that they could not access Outlook data. There was no proof of intent which is required for an adverse inference instruction.