• Home
  • About
  • Terms
  • RSS

The failure to timely issue a litigation hold did not itself create a question of material fact warranting the denial of summary judgment

September 16th, 2009 | By Steve Puiszis

Kotakis v. Wesco Distrib., Inc., 2009 WL 1850827 (W.D.Pa. June 26, 2009)

nothing_exit

In Kotakis, plaintiff filed a Title VII claim asserting she was subjected to discrimination and retaliation because of her gender. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and plaintiff argued that a genuine issue of material fact was triggered because the defendant failed to take steps to preserve its electronically stored information (“ESI”) until nearly eleven (11) months after receiving notice of the litigation.

The district court quickly disposed of plaintiff’s argument. It observed that following Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed’n., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990), the party opposing summary judgment must proffer specific evidence found in the record which demonstrates the existence of a genuine factual dispute on a material issue which requires resolution by a jury. The district court in Kotakis held no question of material fact was presented by the plaintiff, and entered summary judgment in defendant’s favor.

In a footnote, the district court acknowledged plaintiff’s argument that the defendant failed to timely issue a litigation hold, but noted a recent decision, Phillips v. Potter, 2009 WL 1362049, *4-6 (W.D.Pa. May 14, 2009), which ruled that sanctions were inappropriate even though the defendant failed to timely issue a litigation hold when “there was no evidence that relevant documents were destroyed.” The district court in Kotakis found the logic of Potter persuasive, and applied its rationale in rejecting plaintiff’s summary judgment argument. Kotakis, 2009 WL 185027 at *4, n.2.

Thus, when a party opposing summary judgment fails to establish that potentially relevant ESI was lost due to a failure to timely institute a litigation hold, the mere fact that the moving party failed to timely take the necessary procedures to preserve ESI does not, in and of itself, provide a basis to deny the entry of summary judgment.

Leave a Comment »

Leave a Reply

Read Our Comments Policy First

  •  

Follow @ediscoveryblog


Recent Posts

  • Requiring defendant to restore backup tapes would have violated proportionality standard
  • Model order for ediscovery is not just for patent troll cases
  • Puiszis authors feature article on DRI Today about model orders governing electronic discovery
  • Court orders phased discovery under Rule 26′s proportionality principles pending resolution of dismissal motion
  • Making the case for uniform culpability standards for ediscovery sanctions

Categories

  • Accessibility
  • Cost
  • electronic data
  • Forensics
  • Litigation Hold
  • Metadata
  • Preservation
  • Privacy
  • Privilege
  • Production
  • Review
  • Sanctions
  • Uncategorized

Blogroll

  • Death by Email
  • Dennis Kennedy
  • Ediscovery 2.0
  • Fios Inc.
  • For the Defense (DRI)
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • HR Illinois Blog
  • Illinois Institute for CLE
  • Internet Cases
  • kCura Corporation
  • Kroll Ontrack
  • Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
  • The Ethical Quandary
  • The Sedona Conference

Archives

  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008

Tags

Accessibility attorney-client privilege backup tapes confidentiality Cost costs cost shifting deposition electronic data email employee keyword keyword searching Litigation Hold locations Metadata model order native format not reasonably accessible ocr ordinary course of business Preservation Privacy Privilege Production proportionality Review rhoads routes rule 26c Rule 34 Sanctions searching spoliation state rules stay storage stored communications act strategy text messages trade secrets waiver website content work product doctrine zubulake

Copyright © 2009 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.