Archive: February 2017

1
Fischer v. Forrest (SDNY, 2017)
2
Redzepagic v. Hammer – Case Opinion (Southern District of New York, 2017)
3
Below v. Yokohoma Tire Corp (Western District of Wisconsin, 2017)
4
Air Products v. Wiesemann (D. Del., 2017)
5
Lombardo v. Government Emps. Ins. Co., No. 3:16cv392/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2017).
6
Diesel Power Source et al. v. Crazy Carl’s Turbos et al., No. 14-826 (D. Utah Feb. 23, 2017)
7
Court Grants Motion to Compel Reproduction in Requested Format
8
Blasi v. United Debt Services (Souther District Ohio, Eastern Division, 2017)
9
Oppenheimer v. City of La Habra (Central District of California, Southern Division, 2017)
10
Excel Enterprises, LLC v. Winona PVD Coatings, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-19-WCL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 17, 2017)

Redzepagic v. Hammer – Case Opinion (Southern District of New York, 2017)

Key Insight: Sanctions denied against defendant because text messages were available from a different source, sanctions denied against plaintiff because documents were not under plaintiff’s control

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act (failure to pay overtime wages)

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Keywords: FLSA, Sefket, CBA,

View Case Opinion

Below v. Yokohoma Tire Corp (Western District of Wisconsin, 2017)

Key Insight: Negligence or even gross negligence is not necessarily bad faith and thus not spoliation

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Car electronic data

Keywords: truck, bad faith, salvage yard, spoliation, sword, shield

View Case Opinion

Air Products v. Wiesemann (D. Del., 2017)

Key Insight: Sanctions not allowed on parties wiping laptops, because they had only been named as search terms after the other party knew that wiping had happened. No sanction for lost emails available from another source. Pure speculation is not enough to find that relevant ESI was destroyed.

Nature of Case: Securities and Commodities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer log info, laptop info

Keywords: spoliation, sanctions, inherent authority

View Case Opinion

Lombardo v. Government Emps. Ins. Co., No. 3:16cv392/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2017).

Key Insight: personnel file related to settlement and claims handling was ordered to be produced with some confidentiality and redactions to protect personal information of adjuster.

Nature of Case: bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: adjusters personnel file

Keywords: personnel file

View Case Opinion

Diesel Power Source et al. v. Crazy Carl’s Turbos et al., No. 14-826 (D. Utah Feb. 23, 2017)

Key Insight: Plaintiff requested Defendant run 72 “spelling variations” of 5 terms allowed by prior court order. Court denied and allowed 20, but did not apply sanctions yet.

Nature of Case: Libel/Slander

Electronic Data Involved: Various ESI

Keywords: search terms; sanctions; cooperation

View Case Opinion

Court Grants Motion to Compel Reproduction in Requested Format

Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Assoc. v. California Dept. Educ., No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC, 2017 WL 445722 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017)

In this case, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production in native format with metadata, including the reproduction of information already produced, where Defendant failed to follow the protocol set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) and unilaterally produced in “’load file’ format.”

Read More

Blasi v. United Debt Services (Souther District Ohio, Eastern Division, 2017)

Key Insight: Party that does not dispute it spoliated ESI should be sanctioned

Nature of Case: consumer protection class action

Electronic Data Involved: deleted electronic records

Keywords: spoliation sanctions, deleted electronic records

View Case Opinion

Oppenheimer v. City of La Habra (Central District of California, Southern Division, 2017)

Key Insight: Rule 37 does not directly address destruction of video footage.

Nature of Case: prisoner suicide

Electronic Data Involved: video footage, emails, text messages

Keywords: destruction video, spoliation video

View Case Opinion

Excel Enterprises, LLC v. Winona PVD Coatings, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-19-WCL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Feb. 17, 2017)

Key Insight: Defendant produced in format requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed motion to compel on grounds documents not matched up to requests. Due to burden on Defendant and lack of prejudice to Plaintiff, Defendant not required to change format of production.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI Production

Keywords: Format; ordinary course of business

View Case Opinion

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