T&E Investment Group, LLC v. Faulkner, Nos. 11-CV-0724-P, 3:11-CV-1558-P, 2014 WL 550596 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2014)

In this case, the District Court adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and ordered an adverse inference and monetary sanctions for Defendant’s manipulation of metadata using a bulk file changer in an attempt to conceal his use of an unproduced computer.

The defendants were ordered to provide access to “all of the computers used by Defendants during the year 2011, wherever located, for examination of the computers’ hard drives” by a third party independent expert.  The expert subsequently reported that the data on one of the computers produced by individual defendant Christopher Faulkner had been manipulated.  Specifically, the expert reported that “Defendant Faulkner created a new profile on PCL-03, copied data to it, and used a bulk file changer to alter the data in an apparent ‘attempt to make it look like that was his computer that he used all the time.’”  Notably, the bulk of the data at issue was not related to the subject matter of the lawsuit.  The expert further reported that “he believed that someone used the bulk file changer to hide the existence of a computer that had not been produced in this case” and specifically noted Defendant Faulkner’s failure to produce a computer identified as “Alienware,” which the expert believed was used in the Faulkner home during the relevant time period.  Indeed, the evidence indicated that the unproduced Alienware computer had last been used inside the Faulkner home on the day after the court ordered the production of all relevant computers and had in fact been connected to PCL-3, the computer containing the manipulated data.  Evidence also indicated that Defendant Faulkner had sent emails from the Alienware computer during the relevant time period.

Read original article


Tags: Alienware computer, Christopher Faulkner, Defendant Faulkner, Faulkner