Grubb v. University of Illinois

 

University’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation was Unsuccessful

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78485 (N.D. Ill. August 4, 2010)

A university’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence was unsuccessful when it failed to show the spoliating party’s bad faith.

Plaintiff John Grubb, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Dentistry (UIC), was terminated in August 2008. Shortly before his departure, an employee from UIC’s information technology department contacted Grubb, explaining that he had been instructed to remove certain UIC software from Grubb’s laptop computer. Grubb asked the employee to return in a few days so that he might supervise the work, fearing unauthorized access of unrelated confidential information on the laptop. When Grubb returned from lunch that day, however, he discovered that the employee had nonetheless accessed his laptop and removed the UIC software without him present.

Grubb subsequently contacted the American Board of Orthodontics, which had issued him the laptop, and informed the Board of his concern that confidential patient information had been accessed. Approximately one month later, a lawyer for ABO informed Grubb that he should stop using the laptop so that any digital evidence concerning the incident would not be lost. When Grubb discussed the matter with an ABO computer specialist, however, he was told that any data concerning the incident was likely lost due to his consistent use of the laptop in the interim month.

Four months later, ABO issued Grubb a new laptop. Grubb claimed he received a new laptop because he needed a faster machine with more memory. ABO’s computer technician initially made a mirror image of the hard drive from Grubb’s old laptop but later wiped both the hard drive and the mirror image.

Grubb eventually filed suit against UIC for unauthorized access of a computer system under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. UIC moved for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, arguing that the wiping of Grubb’s laptop hard drive had made it impossible to determine what actions the UIC employee had performed on Grubb’s laptop.

After determining that the appropriate standard of proof for a sanctions motion is “preponderance of the evidence,” the Northern District of Illinois held that UIC could not show Grubb had acted in bad faith. Grubb had merely returned the laptop to its owner and did not know, at that time, that ABO intended to delete all of the evidence contained on its hard drive. In addition, ABO’s computer specialist had told Grubb that any digital evidence of the incident that had once existed was likely lost due to Grubb’s continued use of the laptop. This opinion made it unlikely, the court said, that any useable data was available when Grubb returned the laptop to ABO. The court denied UIC’s motion for sanctions, reasoning that the preponderance of the evidence showed that no useable data was lost and that Grubb had not acted in bad faith.

 

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 Forensics Team Develops Award Winning App! - QDiscovery is winner of a 2017 Relativity Innovation Award.  Presented at Relativity Fest, the 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 device data[...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.