Genworth Fin. Wealth Mgmt., Inc. v. McMullan


Defendants Ordered to Pay Majority of Imaging Costs Due to Willful Spoliation

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53145 (D.Conn. 2010)

On plaintiff’s motion to compel, the District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered the defendant employees to submit their personal computers to a neutral computer expert for mirror imaging and to pay 80% of the cost due to their intentional spoliation.

Plaintiff Genworth Financial Wealth Management filed suit against a group of former employees under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, alleging that the employees stole the company’s client information database as part of a plan to set up a competing business. The plaintiff alleged that the employees had used its customer list to solicit hundreds of its clients and to interfere with other business relationships. The defendants argued that they had collected the client information through permissible means and did not have the client database.

One month before filing suit, the plaintiff notified the defendants of their duty to preserve electronic evidence. During discovery, however, the plaintiff determined one of the employees had recently discarded the computer on which he had allegedly downloaded the client database.

On the plaintiff’s motion to compel, the court found the defendants’ argument of independent collection unconvincing, reasoning that the client data was very detailed and unlikely to be created from memory or mere Internet searches. Noting that a mirror image of the relevant computer equipment was the only way for the plaintiff to obtain the electronic evidence to which it was entitled, the court ordered the defendants to submit their computers to a neutral expert and to pay 80% of the associated cost.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that they could not afford to pay a neutral computer expert and agreed with the plaintiff that sanctions may be warranted. The timing of the defendants’ disposal of a relevant computer suggested consciousness of wrongdoing and intentional spoliation. The court agreed that the defendants may be subject to discovery sanctions if they did not fully comply with the order. It was unreasonable, the court said, to make the plaintiff seek a court order to obtain the electronic evidence to which it was already entitled.


Tags: , , , ,

    Related Posts

  • Staff Recognized for Departing Employee Investigations - The first issue of Corporate Counsel Business Journal, CCBJ,  includes an interview with our Director of Digital Forensics, Yaniv Schiff, and Solutions Architect, Curtis Collette, on the evolution of departing employee investigations. Departing Employee: When Do Investigations Become Necessary? appeared in the print publication, online edition, and on CCBJ’s In-House Tech website. For Increasing Numbers of Employers, Departing Employee Investigations[...Read More]
  • Chicago Office Food Drive – The Results Are In - QDiscovery’s Chicago Office collected nearly 1,000 containers of food for the local food bank this Holiday Season!  Our office competed with sister offices in Indiana and Connecticut.  Alas, we came in third.  Our sister offices each collected nearly 2,000 containers for their local food banks.  Relatively new to the company-wide food drive, the Forensics Division[...Read More]
  • QDiscovery QMobile App Wins Innovation Award - QDiscovery’s QMobile is winner of a 2017 Relativity Innovation Award.  Presented at Relativity Fest, the Innovation Award celebrates organizations that create apps or integrations that extend the functionality of Relativity’s eDiscovery software.   Our development team created an application that makes the analysis of mobile collections much more manageable.  Relativity users can now produce and review mobile[...Read More]
  • Moving and Changing - Acquired by Connecticut-based QDiscovery in 2016, Forensicon’s capabilities multiplied overnight, both in forensics brain power and eDiscovery expertise.  As part of a leading provider of end to end litigation support, moving to larger offices that are more central to the Chicago legal community was inevitable.
  • QDiscovery Named One of the Top 20 Providers of Legal Services! - Leading industry publication, CIO Magazine, has named Forensicon’s parent company, QDiscovery, to it’s  Top 20 Providers of Legal Services.  The annual listing includes 20 companies that are at the forefront of providing legal solutions and impacting the marketplace.  Read the whole article here.  Featured in the publication alongside QDiscovery President, Dave Barrett, is Director of Digital Forensics, Yaniv[...Read More]
Comments are closed.