Transcript Doe v. Norwalk Community College

Doe v. Norwalk Community College
248 F.R.D. 372 (D. Conn. 2007)
 Plaintiff=Jane
Doe
 Defendants=Norwalk Community
College (NCC), Connecticut
Community Colleges, and Ronald
Masi
 Violations
of Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972,
as well as State Law claims of
Negligent Retention and
Supervision and Negligent
Infliction of Emotional DistressSexual Assault by Professor Masi
 Good
Faith Operation of an
Electronic Information System
 Doe
files a motion for sanctions
for Discovery Misconduct and
Spoliation of Evidence against the
college Defendants

Doe files Motion to Compel the inspection of
certain electronic records possessed by NCC,
and hires Delay, of DataTrack Resources, a
forensic computer firm Doe retained to
inspect NCC’s computer records-Court grants
her Motion on July 20, 2006
2
Hearings by Court for Computer
Experts:
 Delay=for P
 Bissell=NCC’s Information
Technology Technician
 Olsen=System’s Manager for
Connecticut Community Colleges
 To
prove this, she must show:
 1. Party that had evidence had
obligation to preserve it
 2. Records were destroyed with
culpable state of mind
 3. Destroyed evidence was
relevant to party’s claim
 The
hard drives of key witnesses
in the case were “scrubbed” or
“wiped” of data
 Key player Seaborn had computer
replaced 1 month after suit, old
one was data wiped
 Microsoft
Outlook PST files (for Email) of 4 people had been
altered, destroyed, or filtered.
 Calls
for 2 year retention to
electronic correspondence-Doe
says this should apply to NCC and
was not followed for the hard
drives of faculty members who
left the college.


1. NCC did not need to follow State Library,
because did not apply to “normal computer
usage.”
2. That they surrendered adequate
information dealing with Defendant Masi
 1.
NCC should have placed a
“Litigation Hold” on all documents
relevant to the Doe issue.
 2. NCC also admits to “Scrubbing”
the hard drive of Masi after his
resignation.
 Has
a “Good Faith” exception,
stating a Court may not impose
sanctions on a party for failing to
provide electronically stored
information that was lost as a
result of routine, good faith
operation of an electronic
information system.
 1.
Duty to Preserve
 2. Culpable State of Mind
 3. Relevance

The Court finds that this duty arose
when several professors had a
meeting regarding the sexual assault
by Masi on Doe on February 13, 2004.
This duty comes under Zubulake
because at this time the Defendants
should have known litigation was
“Reasonably Anticipated.”
Court finds that D’s failure to place
Litigation Hold on relevant evidence
was “grossly negligent, if not
reckless.”
 NCC intentionally destroyed evidence
that was relevant to the incident
between Doe and Masi, some of it
within minutes after Delay began his
investigation.

 If
conduct is deemed “Grossly
Negligent” (NCC’s was) or worse,
no further proof is needed for this
prong.
 If conduct is only “Simple
Negligence,” opposing party must
show destroyed evidence would
be favorable to them.
 1.
Doe is entitled to an Adverse
Inference Jury Instruction with
respect to the destroyed evidence.
 2. Doe is entitled to costs she
incurred with this motion,
including the payment of Mr.
Delay.
1. Should additional Damages be
awarded to the opposing party when
their opponent is found to have
destroyed evidence in Bad Faith?
 2. If a good deal of highly relevant
evidence was found to be destroyed in
Bad Faith, should Summary Judgment
be awarded to the opposing party?
