Archive: April 2016

1
Swetlic Chiropractic & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (S.D. Ohio, 2016)
2
National Football League Mgmt. Council v. National Football League Players Assoc. (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 2016)
3
Martin v. Stoops Buick, Inc. (S.D. Ind., 2016)
4
State of Louisiana v. Demontre Smith (Louisiana, 2016)
5
Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Associates, Inc. (District Court of Kansas, 2016)
6
First Niagara Risk Management v. Folino (United States District Court, Eastern District Pennsylvania., 2016)
7
Finding Application of Recently-Amended Rule 37(e) “Neither Unjust Nor Impractical,” Court Imposes Adverse Inference
8
Vay v. Huston (WDPa, 2016)
9
Coale v. Metro-North Railroad Co., No. 08-cv-01307 (D.Conn. Apr. 11, 2016).
10
Update: CAT3 Dismissed, Along with Motion for Sanctions

National Football League Mgmt. Council v. National Football League Players Assoc. (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 2016)

Key Insight: Adverse inference when Brady destroyed cell phone days and subsequently punished for non-cooperation before trial was proper

Nature of Case: Collective Bargaining Agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone data

Keywords: football, Tom Brady, deflategate, collective bargaining agreement,

View Case Opinion

Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Associates, Inc. (District Court of Kansas, 2016)

Key Insight: whether stating that “ESI request is not relevant or proportional” is not sufficient.

Nature of Case: breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: emails

Keywords: informal internal emails

Identified State Rule(s): D. Kan. 37(2)

View Case Opinion

Finding Application of Recently-Amended Rule 37(e) “Neither Unjust Nor Impractical,” Court Imposes Adverse Inference

Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. Carmicle, Nos. 0:14-CV-60629, 0:14-CV-61415, 2016 WL 815827 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2016)

In this case, the court heard argument regarding Defendant’s alleged spoliation in October, 2015—before amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect—and deferred ruling on the motion until the end of trial.  The amendments became effective “shortly after trial concluded.”  Upon determining that “applying the new version of Rule 37(e) would be neither unjust nor impractical,” the court found that Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the information at-issue, despite a duty to do so; that the lost information could not be restored or replaced through additional discovery; and that Defendant acted with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of the information’s use in the litigation.  Accordingly, the court presumed that the lost information was unfavorable to the defendant.  The court also noted that the sanction would be appropriate under prior standards, specifically pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to sanction a party’s bad faith litigation conduct.

Read More

Vay v. Huston (WDPa, 2016)

Key Insight: Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to produce documents and requests sanctions, including dismissal.

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI and scanned PDF documents and other documents.

Keywords: Proportionality, motion to compel (not filed)

View Case Opinion

Coale v. Metro-North Railroad Co., No. 08-cv-01307 (D.Conn. Apr. 11, 2016).

Key Insight: Court concluded defendant had duty to preserve oily substance and was negligent in doing so. Permissive adverse inference instruction granted.

Nature of Case: personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: oily substance plaintiff slipped on

Keywords: adverse inference;

View Case Opinion

Update: CAT3 Dismissed, Along with Motion for Sanctions

CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 5511 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2016)

On April 4, the parties in this case stipulated to dismissal, with prejudice, of all remaining claims in the case and Defendants have withdrawn their motion for sanctions and acknowledged that, in light of “various evidence” provided by Plaintiffs, “neither Plaintiffs nor any of their owners or agents engaged in any discovery misconduct or wrongdoing . . . .”

A copy of the Joint Stipulation is available here.

Click here to read the original case summary addressing the application of recently-amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.