Spoliation of Evidence or Porn Purge? “Bad faith, abuse of the judicial process, and fraud upon the Court…”

Update (April 26, 2012):  “The findings of the Court are against British [Confectionary Company, Ltd.,] and in no way directly or indirectly impugn the integrity, reputation or actions of British’s counsel.” (Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) at p.47)  With clients like these, who needs enemies?

U.S. Mag. Judge Tony N. Leung (D. Minn.) concludes the R&R, “Unfortunately for the parties, this perilous odyssey may not yet be finished…”

Original post (November 22, 2011):  Regular readers of Minnesota Litigator will be familiar with the British Confectionary v. Multifeeder case and, in particular, a lengthy discovery dispute and allegations of spoliation of evidence.  Multifeeder argued as some length that its adversary had engaged in willful destruction of evidence.

British Confectionary responds that Multifeeder’s allegations are pure fantasy, erroneously based on one employee’s indulgence in his own fantasy life (which, of course, had no bearing on the commercial dispute and was not spoliation of evidence).

The response brief is a good primer on some of the technical issues related to electronic discovery.