Archive: April 17, 2006

1
Ordering Defendants to Re-Do Confidentiality Designations, Court Reserved Judgment on Whether Defendants Should Be Sanctioned for “Meat Ax” Approach
2
Lower Court Correctly Found that GM Disobeyed Discovery Orders, but Order Imposing $700,000 in Sanctions and Striking Affirmative Defenses Violated Due Process

Ordering Defendants to Re-Do Confidentiality Designations, Court Reserved Judgment on Whether Defendants Should Be Sanctioned for “Meat Ax” Approach

Flynn v. Oakland County, 2006 WL 950282 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 12, 2006)

In this civil rights case, plaintiffs moved to compel the production of “declassified” discovery. The parties had stipulated to a protective order regarding discovery, issued by the court on January 6, 2006, mandating that certain documents produced during discovery would be kept confidential. The protective order defined “confidential material,” and set out a procedure through which a party could challenge a document’s “confidential” designation. The protective order stated that confidential material could be submitted to the court, but that it must be filed under seal. It also delineated a process to protect confidential material during depositions and file handling. Read More

Lower Court Correctly Found that GM Disobeyed Discovery Orders, but Order Imposing $700,000 in Sanctions and Striking Affirmative Defenses Violated Due Process

Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2006) GM appealed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama which found that GM had violated discovery orders and imposed $700,000 in monetary sanctions and struck certain of GM’s affirmative defenses. A summary of the lower court’s decision and a copy of its order are available here. Read More

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.