Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 16

Parsi v. Daioleslam, 778 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court?s imposition of monetary sanctions for Plaintiff?s many discovery violations, including repeated violation of the court?s orders resulting in belated production of relevant evidence, and found no abuse of discretion for awarding expenses related to Defendants? third motion to compel Plaintiff?s production of relevant hardware, expenses related to the forensic imaging of Plaintiff?s hard drive, expenses related to the redeposition of Plaintiff?s officers (after delayed production of relevant evidence), and litigation expenses as a sanction for withholding emails

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (calendar items, database contents, other)

Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 3:14 CV 956 (JBA), 2015 WL 7458506 (D. conn. Nov. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed parties? disagreement regarding a search and production protocol and considering three options presented by Plaintiff (1) ?sampling and iterative refinement?; 2) a quick peek at all documents to designate a limited number for production; or 3) production of all documents with search hits subject to a clawback agreement) and defendant?s resistance based in proportionality, reasoned that ?[g]iven that there are 1,047 opt-in plaintiffs, ?potentially hundreds more as class members? in the four states . . . and a possible verdict in eight or nine digits if plaintiffs are successful, defendant?s proportionality argument is unavailing?; court ordered defendant to search files of 8 custodians using its own proposed terms (thus creating a presumption of relevancy) and further ordered that defendant could remove documents from production ?only if they are clearly and undeniably irrelevant? or privileged

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESi

SFP Works LLC v. Buffalo Armory LLC, No. 14-13575, 2015 WL 7294580 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff alleged it could not access the data produced by defendant?even with the use of specialized software provided by Defendant and the assistance of a third party vendor?and refused the options provided by defendant insisting instead that defendant must re-load the date to ensure it was not corrupted, the court noted Plaintiff?s failure to timely seek a solution to the discovery problems or to mitigate the difficulties by pursuing any of the offered remedial measures and denied the motion to compel access to the at-issue information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (“operational data”)

Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, 2015 WL 8543639 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Finding defendant and counsel in violation of Rule 26(g) for failing to adequately search for discovery (and for their misrepresentations about those efforts), court instructed that ?Rule 26(g) should not be treated like the proverbial stepchild? and that ?Lawyers should not act like ?potted plants? and accept implausible representations from clients . . . .? and also found that sanctions were warranted pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) for defendant?s violation of the court?s order to produce; accordingly the court imposed sanctions and admonished defendant and counsel for their violation of Rule 26(g) and awarded Plaintiff their fees and costs incurred to obtain the discovery

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged plan to terminate franchise agreements

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents

Siriano v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., No. 2:14-cv-1131, 2015 WL 8259548 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Applying the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(1) (including specific contemplation of Defendants? ?corporate resources? and the ?potentially very large? amount in controversy) and reasoning that the Sixth Circuit has held that ?limiting the scope of discovery is appropriate when compliance ?would prove unduly burdensome,? not merely time-consuming or expensive? and that Defendants failed to propose an alternative method of discovery ?enabling some lesser degree of production,? the court directed the parties to cooperate and indicated it would schedule a conference to discuss ?whether and to what extent discovery should proceed in phases?

Nature of Case: Putative class action re: design or manufacturing defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

D.O.H. v. Lake Cent. Sch. Corp., No. 2:11?cv?430, 2015 WL 736419 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 20, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Finding plaintiff responsible for his prior counsel?s deficient Facebook production, saying he ?voluntarily chose his prior counsel and cannot avoid the consequences for his attorney?s discovery failures? and also responsible for his current counsel?s deficient Twitter production, district court granted Motion for Sanctions filed by defendants in part and ordered plaintiff to produce the entirety of his Twitter profile with redactions for privilege and relevance and to produce a log for any social networking information withheld and to pay the reasonable expenses and attorney?s fees associate with the discovery dispute.

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Social media postings

Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., No. 14CV208-L (BLM), 2015 WL 3397877 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where the parties agreed to a Joint Discovery Plan requiring production in PDF unless metadata was requested and that in such cases the parties should meet and confer to discuss the format of production in good faith and where Defendant made such a request and sought to confer but was ignored, court ordered Plaintiff to re-produce emails with associated metadata at its own expense

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and metadata

HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, NO. A754/2014, 2015 WL 2403099 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For one defendant?s repeated use of a cleaning software (?Disk Utility? and its ?Secure Erase Free Space? function) to delete files and loss of a relevant hard drive without an adequate explanation and for another defendant?s loss of relevant ESI, including her intentional deletion of information from the desktop registry and her disposal of her cell phone (which she notably was unaware had been automatically backed up each time it was connected to her computer), ongoing deletion of text messages (on her new phone), and misrepresentations about when the old phone was discarded, the court found that a mandatory adverse inference was warranted and rejected Defendants? argument that the court should decline to employ the adverse inference at the preliminary injunction state, reasoning that the objective of promoting fairness was best served by ?employing an adverse inference at all relevant states of the litigation?; court also ordered defendants to pay Plaintiff?s attorneys fees without seeking reimbursement from their new employer and indicated its intention to forward its decision to the NY Bar in light of one defendant?s status as an attorney

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of “post-employment covenants”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive, text messages (iphone)

DeCastro v. Kavadia, —F.R.D.—, 2015 WL 4619914 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For defendant?s intentional deletion of emails using cleaning software and misrepresentations intended to cover up the same as well as defendant?s failure to produce documents over which he was found to maintain control and misrepresentations related to the same, the magistrate judge recommended a permissive adverse inference and that defendant and counsel, who ?exacerbated? the effects of defendant?s misconduct through incomplete or misleading representations to the court, be jointly and severally liable for plaintiff?s attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions; district court rejected objections to the recommendations and adopted them in full

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations