Patel v. Havana Bar, Restaurant & Catering, No. 10-1383, 2011 WL 6029983 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2011) In this opinion addressing the parties’ cross motions for sanctions, the court ordered an adverse inference for defendants’ failure to preserve relevant video surveillance footage and an adverse inference for plaintiff’s failure to preserve relevant witness statements. For… Continue Reading
I-Med Pharma, Inc. v. Biomatrix, Inc., No. 03-3677 (DRD), 2011 WL 6140658 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2011)
“This case highlights the dangers of carelessness and inattention in e-discovery.” In this case, the court affirmed the order of the Magistrate Judge which excused plaintiff from the obligation of reviewing and producing millions of pages of documents recovered from unallocated space files in light of the extreme burden and cost of such an undertaking.
In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., No. 2011-1199, 2011 WL 5928689 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2011)
In this case, Ricoh sought review of the district court’s award of costs to Synopsys related to the parties’ use of Stratify (“a third-party electronic database service”) for the production of email. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that costs related to the database could be recovered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), but reversed the lower court’s award in light of the parties’ agreement to split the costs.
Effective yesterday, the District of Delaware has adopted revised default standards for discovery, including electronic discovery. The standards cover a broad range of e-discovery issues from cooperation and proportionality to preservation, privilege, and format of production, among others. Clearly intended to provide more than just general guidance to parties before the court, the default standards… Continue Reading
Naaco Materials Handling Group, Inc. v. Lilly Co., No. 11-2415 AV, 2011 WL 5986649 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2011)
In this case, the court found that defendant “failed to take reasonable steps to preserve, search for, and collect potentially relevant information . . . after its duty to preserve evidence was triggered by being served with the complaint” which may have resulted in the destruction of relevant evidence. Further, defendant failed to present an adequately prepared and knowledgeable 30(b)(6) deponent. Accordingly, sanctions were imposed, including, among other things, additional discovery, additional forensic imaging at defendant’s expense, and monetary sanctions.
TJS of New York, Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation and Fin., 932 N.Y.S.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 3, 2011) In this case, the court determined that the software program necessary to view certain files produced to the petitioner subject to New York’s Freedom of Information Law was a “record” for purposes… Continue Reading