You Won't Know It When You See It: The Challenges of Fabricated Evidence In the Digital Age
How significant is the threat of fabricated digital evidence that can alter the outcome of a case? In today's wired workplace, it's considerable.
April 13, 2022 at 04:45 PM
12 minute read
It was a Perry Mason moment for the Digital Age, and it came on one of the biggest of stages — in the midst of a heated, $1.4 billion lawsuit between two oil giants squaring off in a Fort Worth, TX courtroom in 2015. Moncrief Oil International had sued Russian oil and gas giant Gazprom over an unsuccessful contract to purchase part of a Russian gas field in the late 1990s. Moncrief alleged that it had shared inside information with Gazprom in 2004 about a planned natural gas plant in Texas, and that Gazprom used that information to cut a better deal with Occidental Petroleum, the plant's manufacturer. Gazprom denied receiving any trade secrets, only to have Moncrief and its lawyers confront them with a 2004 PowerPoint slide deck. A single slide from that presentation, containing a chart from an analysis of natural gas value claim costs prepared by a University of Texas geologist, was the supposed "smoking gun."
But when Gazprom's legal team did an Internet search that revealed that the information in the "2004" slide was actually prepared in 2012, the "smoking gun" was exposed as a fabrication. Gazprom moved for sanctions, and Moncrief's lawyers — acknowledging that an "employee made a tragic mistake that created a flawed record" — voluntarily dismissed their billion dollar lawsuit with prejudice. All of this was the result of someone putting the title of the chart in question into Google, and seeing the actual author from 2012 appear atop the search results.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Truth Still Prevails': In Age of Disinformation, Defamation Attorneys Score Landmark Jury Verdict
Boies Schiller Company Loses Appeal: Could Owe 7 Figures in Attorney Fees
Defense Counsel Can't Use Unrelated Lawsuit to Impeach Expert Witness Testimony, Judge Rules
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250