Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations

1
Beyer v. Medico Ins. Group, 2009 WL 3817211 (D.S.D. Nov. 13, 2009)
2
Hale v. Coors Distrib. Co., 2009 WL 1600678 (D. Colo. June 5, 2009)
3
U.S. v. Two Bank Accounts, 2008 WL 2696927 (D.S.D. July 2, 2008)
4
AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008)
5
APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2008 WL 548765 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2008)
6
Dynamic Sports Nutrition, Inc. v. Roberts, 2008 WL 2775007 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2008)
7
In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 20008 WL 5104173 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2008)
8
Meccatech, Inc. v. Kiser, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008)
9
Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008)
10
In re Rosenthal, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

Beyer v. Medico Ins. Group, 2009 WL 3817211 (D.S.D. Nov. 13, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant claimed responding to discovery would require searching 200,000 claim files but where court determined defendant could sort claims files using specific codes, court found defendant?s assertions ?disingenuous? and ordered production of the requested files; where defendant claimed search remained unduly burdensome because of need to convert certain files to allow text searching, court reasoned that ?the fact that answering [request for relevant discovery] will be burdensome and expensive is not in itself a reason for the court?s refusing to order discovery which is otherwise appropriate? and ordered the production of all documents describing defendant?s electronic means of searching and all software used during the relevant timeframe (as requested by plaintiff) if defendant persisted in claiming an inability to search electronically as a basis for refusing to answer discovery

Nature of Case: Bad faith denial of insurance claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim files

Hale v. Coors Distrib. Co., 2009 WL 1600678 (D. Colo. June 5, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff?s counsel?s understanding of defendant?s computer capabilities was ?neither thorough nor accurate? and that the lack of understanding resulted in an inability to adequately articulate the nature of the information sought, and finding that the lack of understanding was attributable to both parties, court considered six part test to determine whether discovery should be re-opened and then granted plaintiff?s request for additional discovery, limited by the court?s instructions

Electronic Data Involved: Database information

U.S. v. Two Bank Accounts, 2008 WL 2696927 (D.S.D. July 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Where party initially told government he did not have certain computers used in various businesses discussed in complaint, then revealed that he possessed the computers but objected to providing them to government, and then admitted having removed hard drives and hiring third party to create a mirror images, court ruled that government was not bound to accept mirror image made by third party and ordered party to produce computers to government for inspection; court further ordered government to promptly create mirror image of hard drives and return computers promptly to party

Nature of Case: Forfeiture action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of certain computers used in the transactions alleged in the complaint

AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel additional electronic searching as to certain custodians where defendant established their potential relevance and where plaintiff failed to establish additional search would be unduly burdensome or that custodians had no relevance to litigation; court noted that plaintiff?s assertions that documents referencing custodians at issue were drafted before the popularization of email does not excuse obligation to search for potentially relevant materials even where the search may be ?fruitless?

Nature of Case: Breach of reinsurance contracts

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email of particular custodians

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2008 WL 548765 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s December 21, 2008 order imposing sanctions of $99,462, upheld the December 21, 2008 order in its entirety, and ordered defendants to comply with the order by March 3, 2008

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Dynamic Sports Nutrition, Inc. v. Roberts, 2008 WL 2775007 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2008)

Key Insight: Finding substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail on its claims, that plaintiff was suffering ?immediate, irreparable, imminent harm? for which there was no adequate remedy at law, that defendants had posted confidential information about plaintiff?s products on publicly accessible blogs and websites, that individual defendant had misappropriated laptop belonging to plaintiff after his termination from plaintiff and had failed to comply with aspects of the court’s Temporary Restraining Order, court entered preliminary injunction forbidding defendants from, among other things, deleting relevant ESI and requiring defendants to return laptop to plaintiff?s counsel and to preserve all evidence of any disclosure or dissemination of plaintiff?s confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and and violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer and confidential business information

In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 20008 WL 5104173 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2008)

Key Insight: Court compelled production of deponent to answer specifically tailored questions regarding retention of electronically stored documents where plaintiff suspected spoliation due to defendant?s failure to timely issue preservation notices and where inquiry into retention policies would assist in narrowing scope of discoverable electronic materials; court also compelled production of identity of author of relevant email

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies, email

Meccatech, Inc. v. Kiser, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Where the court found that defendants had ?intentionally destroyed or withheld? ESI, including by deleting relevant evidence or attempting to discard a relevant hard drive (which was instead saved by the technician defendant told to discard it), and where the destruction resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the court ordered default judgment against defendant and other evidentiary sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to preserve DVR footage by not recording it on to a VHS tape before the footage was overwritten on the DVR hard drive, district court modified magistrate judge’s order, finding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s request for adverse inference charge for defendants’ failure to preserve evidence

Nature of Case: Prisoner asserted ? 1983 action against various prison defendants

Electronic Data Involved: Digital video recording showing altercation between prisoner and prison staff

In re Rosenthal, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

Key Insight: Finding that District Attorney?s admitted deletion of more than 2,500 emails sought by subpoena constituted ?unexcused, egregious conduct,? court found him in contempt of court and imposed $18,900 in sanctions (representing attorneys? fees); court further found that actions of attorney representing DA in the proceedings were ?unprincipled and dilatory, at best, constituting a deliberate indifference to the Court’s Orders and subpoena,? held him in contempt of court, and ordered that $5,000 of the $18,900 in sanctions awarded against DA was jointly and severally awarded against his attorney

Nature of Case: Civil rights suit against Harris County, Texas, the Harris County Sheriff and several Harris County deputies

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails of the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.