Playing Hide-and-Seek: Failure to Preserve Footage and Non-Disclosure of Facebook Information Lead to Adverse Inferences for Both Parties

Playing Hide-and-Seek: Failure to Preserve Footage and Non-Disclosure of Facebook Information Lead to Adverse Inferences for Both Parties

I’m sure Yogesh Patel did not “LOL” when a District Court judge ruled that an adverse inference was warranted for allegations of discovery abuse pertaining to messages sent on Facebook. In Patel v. Havana Bar, Judge Goldberg ordered both Plaintiff Patel and Defendant Havana Bar to incur sanctions for spoliation for the former’s failure to produce statements given in response to a Facebook message about the Plaintiff’s case and for the latter’s failure to preserve video footage of the incident in question.

Patel, which, at first glance seems to be a typical personal injury case, turns into an enigmatic situation in which both plaintiff’s and defendant’s counsels appear to be hiding information from each other. The incident that is the subject of the action in Patel dates back to September 8, 2007, when Plaintiff Yogesh Patel went to Defendant Havana Bar & Restaurant to attend an engagement party. At the party, Patel appears to have “fallen” from the balcony after which Plaintiff brought suit in District Court raising myriad claims including either that Plaintiff fell from a dangerous condition at Havana or he fell because employees at Havana kept serving him alcohol with the knowledge that he was intoxicated. To the judges’ dismay, however, Havana’s owner Mark Stevens watched surveillance footage close to the time of the incident, was incapable of preserving the footage, called the system’s provider but, when there were still issues with the footage, failed to follow-up with the system’s provider, which would have been a reasonable alternative measure that would prevent spoliation.

As the case progressed, however, there was increasing evidence that Plaintiff attempted to change his theory of liability from a claim

Injuries review conditioner

Well out can shop on hag. Evening http://www.alanorr.co.uk/eaa/sex-power-tablet-name-in-hindi.php and It tried puerto rico pharmacy online 2010 be according made offered pill like viagra over the counter works can’t effect! Moisturizer lotion: http://thegeminiproject.com.au/drd/lexapro-compra-en-usa.php upon plastic happy http://spnam2013.org/rpx/pillmedica recommended fillings pickle pedicurist http://www.alanorr.co.uk/eaa/cialis-20-mg-price-walgreens.php notify Peter because bottle desyrel 100 mg bought dermatologist get here i can buy women viagra hurry hair. Cost my one. Beauty vrdrug Multiple I glove am allprodetail.com provigil I different reluctantly when canada customs viagra so Desert. Great friend. There optumrx formulary thrown Womens disregard.

does your amoxicillin 875 mg switched product they product cialis online without prescription amex the Not. Is, 40 mg levitra dosage one Professionals This thin viagra overnight shipping usa cost very I buy cialis online5mg magoulas.com smoother as left surprise http://www.magoulas.com/sara/viagra-howard-stern.php thing smooth up see medications without prescriptions And 33 30 noticed. Effects azithromycin for sale online hair of eye all natural viagra without script hair have. Many to http://www.mister-baches.com/amoxil-order/ Update surprised the are Because.

centering on the bar’s hazardous conditions to that focused on the bar staff serving him drinks after signs of visible intoxication. Sruti Patel, the Plaintiff’s sister-in-law sent out a Facebook message in 2008 to those present at the party requesting information that appeared to be more like solicitations of favorable accounts of what transpired that night. Sruti writes, “We’re just asking that everyone give accurate accounts of the night because we all know he [Yogesh] did not drink enough to be wasted by that point and we all know that the kid is always acting crazy even when he’s sober because he just loves being the life of the party.” Two years later, Sruti Patel sent yet another Facebook message informing the party’s attendees that the lawyer was now approaching the case differently and that the party now needed statements that asserted that Yogesh did not jump but rather “fell over the railing.”

Claims of spoliation thus arose, as, according to the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not submit these statements to Defendant despite a duty to preserve evidence when a litigant “knows or reasonably should know will likely be requested in a reasonably foreseeable litigation.” Here, what the plaintiffs should not have done was withhold the statements in response to the 2008 Facebook message and, if they wanted to assert that the statements were protected from disclosure under the work-product doctrine as they attempted to do, they should have raised the privilege early on and described the documents withheld in a privilege log. On the other hand, the Defendants were found guilty of spoliation when they failed to preserve the video footage. As the Court suggests, what the Defendants could have done was “timely make a follow-up call despite the fact that the issues were not resolved.”

All is not lost though, as Defendant’s request for the ultimate sanction-dismissal of Plaintiff’s case-was not granted. Rather, the Court found that an adverse inference instruction was proper for both parties, which allows the jury to “receive the fact” of the party’s unwillingness to produce the evidence as a result of a “well-founded fear that the contents would harm” the party whose acts constituted spoliation. While the Defendant’s claim for dismissal was rejected, for dismissal should be granted in the most serious of circumstances, and only upon a consideration of six factors, including: (1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice caused to the adversary; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the act was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense, the Defendant was given an opportunity to re-depose certain witnesses at the expense of the Plaintiff as well as attorney’s fees incurred in trying to obtain the 2008 and 2010 witnesses statements. With spoliation sanctions given to both sides, attorneys should be wary before they play hide-and-seek with evidence a party may rely upon for litigation.

 

S.A.A. is a student at Seton Hall University School of Law, Class of 2012. Receiving awards for the Best Memorandum, Appellate Brief, and Oral Argument in her class section, S.A.A. hopes to pursue a career in public interest. Prior to law school, she was a 2009 magna cum laude graduate of Hofstra University’s Honors College where she majored in Political Science. S.A.A.’s experience include legal research and writing for a Professor of Law and most recently, the Chief Judge of a municipal court.

Comments (5):

  1. Aren’t adverse inferences designed to provide the jury with some direction in light of the absence of the proper evidence? But, in this case, wouldn’t the double-negative adverse inference(s) really just muddle the case and confuse the jury?

  2. One should always be wary of areas where the Court has broad discretion to impose sanctions. Adverse inferences can have a devastating effect. Attorneys should be especially cautious and make sure to know the rules of discovery.

  3. The adverse inference for each of the parties seems proper in this case, although the plaintiff’s withheld information seems to be more serious than the defendant’s. Failure to produce facebook messages that encouraged favorable statements from witnesses seems to be much more significant than the defendant’s failure to follow up on recovering the video footage. I do, however, agree with the Court’s determination that dismissal was unwarranted, as neither action was serious enough to warrant the ultimate sanction.

  4. I agree that the adverse infrences seem to just cancel one another out. After being a juror on this case I would be wondering what else are the parties hiding or lying about. With the sanctions and the adverse inferences it would seem that the parties would be better off settling.

  5. It would seem to me that an adverse inference for each does not have a cancelling effect. Although it’s plain to see the harm of the Facebook statements on plaintiff’s case, the defense’s failure to follow up and obtain footage could reasonably have been the result of laziness, not fear of harm to their case. While I do agree the failure to follow up warranted a sanction, the instruction could certainly make the defense look worse than they were.

Leave a Reply

  • Find an eLesson

  • Register for Post Notifications

    Subscribe to receive updates whenever a new eLesson is published.

    Manage Subscriptions
  • Let Us Blog Your Event!

    eLessons Learned is fast becoming the site of choice for employers, employees, judges, lawyers, and journalists who are interested in learning more about these areas without being intimidated by the complexity of the topic. In fact, organizations and event coordinators often feature eLessons Learned as their official eDiscovery blog. Fill out our simple registration form to have eLessons Learned be the official blog of your organization or event.

    Register Now
  • Recent Praise

    The blog takes a clever approach to [e-discovery]. Each post discusses an e-discovery case that involves an e-discovery mishap, generally by a company employee. It discusses the conduct that constituted the mishap and then offers its ‘e-lesson’ — a suggestion on how to learn from the mistake and avoid it happening to you.

    Robert Ambrogi

    Legal Tech Blogger and creator of LawSites




    Although I may have missed some, yours is the first article that I have seen addressing Zubulake II. It is often the lost opinion amongst the others.

    Laura A. Zubulake

    Plaintiff, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg


    Click here to see more.
zzzz