• Technologies
    • Review Platforms
    • ILS Social Media Data Analysis Suite
  • Consulting & Services
    • Consulting
    • Forensics & Collections
    • Review Platform Hosting & Management
    • Managed Review
    • Our Experts
  • AI Resources
  • ILS Articles
  • Company
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Support
    • Contact Us
  • ILS
  • Sales
  • Support
  • Technologies
    • Review Platforms
    • ILS Social Media Data Analysis Suite
  • Consulting & Services
    • Consulting
    • Forensics & Collections
    • Review Platform Hosting & Management
    • Managed Review
    • Our Experts
  • AI Resources
  • ILS Articles
  • Company
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Support
    • Contact Us

August 28, 2013

Does the Destruction of Metadata Necessarily Prejudice Plaintiffs?

by Alan Brooks

Our last blog reviewed the legal standard for spoliation of electronically stored evidence in a district court case within the 10th Circuit. In Herrmann v. Rain Link, Inc., Case No. 11-1123-RDR (D. Kan. July 19, 2013), the court ultimately held that although the defendants failed to preserve ESI, this was merely negligent and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice. (It should be noted that although the court found defendant’s behavior merely negligent, had the court found it willful, the court would have still required a showing of prejudice to the innocent party.)

However, one issue regarding the defendant’s alleged spoliation was a close call for the court: Was the plaintiff prejudiced by the destruction of metadata? There were four separate counts that plaintiff alleged:

1. Defendant produced emails in PDF form, not in native file format. Of course, PDFs are basically the equivalent of taking a picture or screen shot of electronic data, so metadata is not included. However, plaintiff failed to articulate what he would have expected the missing evidence to show, or how it would have been relevant to a claim or defense.

2. Defendant produced corporate meeting minutes and admitted that the minutes were not drafted at the meeting, but after the meeting with handwritten notes given to his assistant. Plaintiff wanted any drafts of the minutes, alleging the document produced was merely to “paper the file” and was not based on actual events. However, since the defendant readily admitted that the minutes were created after the meeting and that prior drafts were hand-written notes that were thrown out as was the regular course of business, the court was not convinced that plaintiff was prejudiced.

3. Another issue regarded Work-In-Progress data with year-end numbers. Plaintiff wanted more information about where defendant came up with such numbers. However, that document was created by a former employee, and defendant claimed ignorance as to how the numbers were calculated. Noting that defendant did provide current spreadsheets regarding WIP information, the court did not even rule on prejudice, because it was never demonstrated that the “missing” data ever even existed.

4. Finally, plaintiff alleged that a memo from defense counsel, produced in PDF format, lacked metadata and constituted spoliation. The memo concerned a telephone call between plaintiff’s attorney and defense counsel, and defense counsel filed an affidavit that the document was, in fact, created on the date noted. Defendant claimed that his computer crashed and the metadata was lost. The court noted that this was a “close call,” but sided with defendant, as a licensed attorney, is held to an oath to tell the truth. The court believed defense counsel’s affidavit, and noted the metadata would likely not prove otherwise.

Were the magistrate judge’s recommendations correct in this case? Should plaintiffs be required to show prejudice for negligent loss of metadata?

ILS – Plaintiff Electronic Discovery Experts

Categories: eDiscovery

Tags: metadata, native file, plaintiff electronic discovery

ILS
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 270
Irvine, CA 92614
(888) 313-4457
sales@ilsteam.com
  • About ILS
  • Consulting
  • Forensics & Collections
  • Review Platform Hosting & Management
  • Managed Review
  • Sales
  • Support
  • LinkedIn
  • X

© 2025 ILS.

  • Privacy Statement
  • Cookie Statement
  • Terms of Use/Legal
ILS
Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}