Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations

1
In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 20008 WL 5104173 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2008)
2
Meccatech, Inc. v. Kiser, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008)
3
Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008)
4
In re Rosenthal, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)
5
Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. and Operations, Inc., 2008 WL 5101451 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)
6
Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A., 2008 WL 3261095 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2008)
7
SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio, 587 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
8
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122437 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)
9
Mother, LLC. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 2007 WL 2302974 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2007)
10
NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)

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

Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. and Operations, Inc., 2008 WL 5101451 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce requested expert information in searchable format, pursuant to court order, until after defendants filed a motion for sanctions, but where plaintiffs failures were not willful and where prejudice to defendants was minimal, court ordered plaintiff to bear costs of defendants? motion to compel but declined to strike plaintiffs? expert or impose other severe sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Expert’s report in searchable format

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio, 587 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Key Insight: Where, despite repeated court orders directing production, plaintiff failed to produce an un-redacted email upon which the case turned and claimed the email inaccessible because the computer on which it was stored had been destroyed and where plaintiff failed to pay court ordered sanctions for its failure to produce, court lifted earlier stay of dismissal and ordered plaintiff to pay additional $5000 sanction plus defendant?s attorneys fees and costs

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122437 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court found it “bothersome” that it no attempt at all was made by some of the founders to search, even on a random basis, their personal or office emails, balancing the burden on the founders of conducting full email searches of their non-@hssh.org email accounts against the likelihood that such searches would recover few, if any, additional documents not already produced by Heartland, court declined to require founders to conduct any searches of their personal email accounts in responding to subpoenas

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personal email accounts of plaintiff’s founders

Mother, LLC. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 2007 WL 2302974 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2007)

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s failure to comply with discovery order requiring production of ?all electronically stored information regarding its finances,” court struck plaintiff’s claim for loss of profits and ordered plaintiff to pay reasonable expenses, costs, and attorneys? fees incurred by defendant in bringing motion

Nature of Case: Trade dress infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI regarding plaintiff’s finances

NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Defendant?s failure to comply with magistrate?s orders compelling production of email and other responsive documents warranted monetary sanctions as follows: (1) $26,667 for legal fees incurred by plaintiff as result of defendant?s discovery misconduct; (2) separate fine of $25,000 for defendant’s contempt of court orders; and (3) separate fine of $5,000 on defense counsel?s law firm for defense counsel?s role in his client?s actions

Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other responsive documents

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