Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 32

In re Stern, 321 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: On petition for a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering petitioner to produce communications between himself and nearly forty individuals where such discovery was not narrowly tailored to avoid the inclusion of ?tenuous information irrelevant to the establishment of jurisdiction? (the subject of petitioner?s special appearance) and held that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a special master to conduct a forensic examination of petitioner?s hard drive where there was no showing that petitioner had defaulted in his discovery obligations, where there was no showing that a search of the hard drive would recover relevant information (particularly in light of petitioner?s use of web-based email), where the special master was appointed without following the procedures called for by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, where the special master?s broad authorization to search the hard drives (including the authority to choose search terms) amounted to an ?impermissible fishing expedition?, and where the trial court required no showing of the feasibility of retrieving the data by the party requesting the search

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Diocese of Harrisburg v. Summix Dev. Co., 2010 WL 2034699 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference in favor of defendant where plaintiff failed to preserve backup tapes which ?may have contained emails with evidence to support defendants? claims?, despite a duty to do so

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.P.A., 2010 WL 1631519 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found defendants were ?at least? grossly negligent for failing to issue a written litigation hold and ordered defendants to pay the costs of plaintiff?s motion to compel as well as a $25,000 fine; in devising its sanction, the court considered defendants other conduct, including defendants? deficient search for responsive documents, defense counsel?s lack of meaningful supervision in the discovery process, and defendants? decision to withhold certain documents deemed insufficiently important, among other things

Nature of Case: Lanham Act/ mislabeled ingredients

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 3522798 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the defendant was warned that failure to uphold discovery obligations would result in severe sanctions and where, with the help of a special master, it was determined that defendant ?repeatedly and knowingly? concealed information from the court and acted in bad faith to prevent the discovery of relevant information, including interfering with counsel?s efforts to identify responsive information, the court ordered dispositive sanctions and found that an agency relationship existed as a matter of law between defendant and the bus company involved in the fatal accident that was the basis for plaintiffs? claims

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fatal bus accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

County of Erie v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to take steps to preserve potentially relevant documents until approximately three and one half years after the lawsuit was initiated and was thus grossly negligent, the court granted an adverse inference and monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s reasonable fess and costs of making the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Suit alleging that drug companies had inflated average wholesale price for Medicaid drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

IMRA Am., Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corp., 2010 WL 2812999 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court imposed spoliation sanction and precluded plaintiff and its expert from offering opinion or evidence on any simulations relied upon in forming the basis of plaintiff?s Second Infringement Report where the input data upon which the simulations relied were lost in a computer crash and where plaintiff failed to timely disclose the destruction

Electronic Data Involved: Input data forming basis for expert’s report

Fatpipe Networks India Ltd. v. Xroads Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 129790 (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant had not produced all versions of its relevant source code despite a court order and had been untruthful as to its maintenance of certain records, court granted plaintiff?s motion to vacate its scheduling order and ordered defendant to take specific action, including 1) taking specific measures to ensure preservation of relevant evidence, 2) taking ?all reasonable measures to obtain from third parties?including past or present customers? evidence of its software development and version history, 3) identifying all computers on which anyone had engaged in software development since 2006 and all devices which ?ha[d] at any time contained? data reflecting such activity, and 4) producing all prior or current versions of software and source code for each relevant device, among other things

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding of contempt and order to pay plaintiffs? attorney?s fees and costs was no abuse of discretion where the court?s order to disclose financial assets was ?perfectly clear? and where there was ?clear and convincing? evidence of defendants? non-compliance and that defendants were not diligent in their attempts to comply; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting default judgment against all defendants in light of willful and bad faith discovery violations, including intentional deletion of ESI and lying about the existence and location of documents which ?formed a pattern of ?prolonged and vexatious obstruction?, and where lesser sanctions would be ineffective and defendants were aware of the consequences of non-compliance with their discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants’ failure to pay for special access servers ordered from plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 2976076 (N.D. Miss. July 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to produce the ?general ledger? in hard copy, with redactions, where the record made clear that defendants made no real attempt to comply with the court?s order compelling electronic production and, where defendant offered no proof of any court order prohibiting disclosure of the information contained in the ledger, where there was a sufficient protective order in place, and where ?matters involving payment of attorney fees are generally not privileged,? the court vacated prior orders allowing redactions and ordered production of the general ledger on CD or DVD within 3 days

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 894 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, upon en camera review, the court determined that counsel could not support his claim of privilege as to 55 emails and therefore sanctioned counsel $5000, appellate court affirmed the order and found the lower court had exercised proper discretion ?because [counsel?s] claim that the 55 e-mails were privileged was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by any reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.?

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages for breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations