In Nycomed U.S. Inc. v. Glenmark Generics Ltd., 2010 WL 3173785 (E.D.N.Y.) the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York sanctioned the Defendant, a multinational corporation, $125,000.00, payable in part to Plaintiff and in part to the Court itself, for failing to search and produce documents contained on an outside server and a key employee's laptop. 

In Siani v. State University of New York at Farmingdale, 2010 WL 3170664 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied an adverse inference sanction, despite finding that defendants negligently deleted emails after the duty to preserve arose, where the Plaintiff could not demonstrate that the allegedly deleted emails were relevant.

In Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a plaintiff was not culpable for spoliation of a laptop through continued use where he was not knowledgeable as to the impact of daily use on electronic information and there was little evidentiary value to the laptop at the time of the alleged spoliation.   Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D.Ill. 2010).

In Penberg v. Healthbridge Management, 2010 WL 2787616 (March 29, 2010), the United States District Court for the District of Eastern New York imposed sanctions on the plaintiff in an employment discrimination action for deleting electronic documents stored on a personal computer. 

In In re Global Technovations, Inc, 2010 WL 2671706 (July 2 2010), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied requests for sanctions where the alleged spoliation was caused by a lender superseding control of the debtor company following a non-monetary loan default.

In Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 2010 WL 2294538 (6^th Cir. 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a trial court's decision to sanction the Plaintiffs in the form of dismissal for "[making] numerous false statements, [destroying] or [hiding] evidence, [fabricating] evidence, [suborning] perjury, and generally [abusing] the legal process." 

In Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. v. McMullan, 2010 WL 2195274 (D.Conn. 2010), the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut shifted 80% of the costs of forensic imaging done by a neutral, court-appointed computer forensic expert to the Defendants where the Court found the Defendants may have disposed of a personal computer after opposing counsel submitted letters instructing them to preserve all relevant documents in anticipation of litigation.

In Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 2010 WL 2620802 (Ariz.App.2010) the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld a trial court order striking the defendant's answer and entering default judgment for repeatedly and continuously violating discovery obligations by failing to produce responsive documents. 

In City of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon, 2010 WL 2400087 (2010), Justice Kennedy for the United States Supreme Court held that a police department's search of an employee's text messages on an employer-provided pager was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 

In Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Production, Inc., 2010 WL 1990555 (S.D. W. Va. May 18, 2010), Judge Mary E. Stanley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia held that the Plaintiff waived its attorney-client privilege with respect to a key email for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent disclosure.