Freidman v. Philadelphia Parking Authority
Freidman v. Philadelphia Parking Authority
2016 WL 6246814 (E.D. Pa. 2016)
March 10, 2016

Kearney, Mark A.,  United States District Judge

Cost Recovery
Spoliation
Sanctions
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The court granted the motion for fees and costs against the Philadelphia Parking Authority, but denied the motion for an adverse inference sanction. The court also ordered the defendants to file a sworn certification describing progress in their review of their backup tapes, and plaintiffs to file a petition for reimbursement of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. This decision recognizes the importance of preserving ESI for use in legal proceedings.
Additional Decisions
Freidman, et al.
v.
Philadelphia Parking Authority, et al
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-6071
Signed March 10, 2016

Counsel

Brett Adam Berman, Christine Soares, Ryan T. Becker, Fox Rothschild LLP, George Bochetto, Jeffrey W. Ogren, Bochetto & Lentz PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Freidman, et al.
Patrick J. Doran, Gary D. Fry, Archer & Greiner PC, Dennis G. Weldon, The Philadelphia Parking Authority, Philadelphia, PA, Rebecca Lynne Rakoski, Archer & Greiner, PC, Haddonfield, NJ, for Philadelphia Parking Authority, et al.
Kearney, Mark A., United States District Judge

ORDER

*1 AND NOW, this 10th day of March 2016, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for sanctions arising from alleged spoliation of electronically stored information (ECF Doc. No. 62), Defendants' response (ECF Doc. No. 66), Defendants' and board members' certification of full discovery (ECF Doc. No. 54), analysis and review of the credibility of witnesses and study of arguments at our January 15, 2016 evidentiary hearing, Defendants' post hearing certifications (ECF Doc. Nos. 78, 80, 89), Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum (ECF Doc. No. 90), and for the reasons in the accompanying findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF Doc. No. 62) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion for a Rule 37(e) adverse inference sanction is DENIED without prejudice, as Plaintiff is presently unable to adduce evidence of lost information; and,
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for fees and costs under Rule 37 (a)(5) against the Philadelphia Parking Authority is GRANTED:
a. On or before March 21, 2016, Plaintiffs may file a petition for reimbursement of reasonable attorney's fees and costs with comparator affidavits of reasonable attorney's fees, including reasonable computer forensic costs paid by Defendants in connection with reviewing document production, testimony and electronically stored information necessary to prepare and file Plaintiffs' December 21, 2015 Motion for Sanctions (ECF Doc. No. 62) and its presentation at the January 15, 2016 hearing; Plaintiffs may file a redacted version with their counsel's attached invoices and evidence of payments to counsel but shall contemporaneously provide the unredacted copy of all invoices and payments demonstrating reasonable fees and costs for in camera review. Defendants may object to the amount of Plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees and costs, including reasonable computer forensic costs, with specific challenges on or before March 28, 2016; and,
b. On or before March 31, 2016, Defendants shall file a sworn certification describing progress in their ongoing review of their backup tapes with a supplemental sworn certification filed on or before April 15, 2016.