Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
MDS Am., Inc. v MDS Int’l, S.A.R.I., 2005 WL 3107769 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2005)
2
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)
3
Ferrero v. Henderson, 2004 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)
4
Allianz Ins. Co. v. Otero, 353 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
5
Ferrero v. Henderson, 341 F.Supp.2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2004), opinion withdrawn in part on reconsideration, 2005 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)
6
Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Caruth, 786 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. App. 1990)
7
GTFM, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2000 WL 335558 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2000)
8
MasterCard Int’l v. Moulton, 2004 WL 1393992 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2004)
9
Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004)
10
Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F.Supp.2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004) (“Mosaid IV”)

MDS Am., Inc. v MDS Int’l, S.A.R.I., 2005 WL 3107769 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2005)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment as sanction for tardy production of documents, court found that plaintiff had suffered little prejudice from delay and that defendant had worked diligently, did not willfully withhold responsive documents, and did not improperly modify or delete files froom hard drive before voluntarily producing it

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions and dismissed case with prejudice because, among other things, plaintiffs had failed to preserve relevant electronic data that plaintiffs knew were critical, and it would be impossible for defendants to defend the case without the electronic data that was not produced and no longer available

Nature of Case: Business sued competitors for defamation and unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Ferrero v. Henderson, 2004 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Where parties had settled the amount of attorney fees to be paid to plaintiff as sanction for defendant’s failure to produce crucial payroll records until first day of trial, court reconsidered and withdrew finding of bad faith on part of defense counsel since she had made at least some effort to reasonably investigate, and the failure to produce the material was blamed on two employees in defendant’s HR department

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, FMLA claim

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

Allianz Ins. Co. v. Otero, 353 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendants maintained that there was more to a particular claim file than what was produced, that material was destroyed and that they were prejudiced, court denied defendants’ request for dismissal of all claims for negligent spoliation of evidence, finding that defendants had not established sufficient prejudice to warrant the extreme remedy sought

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Computer-generated claim file

Ferrero v. Henderson, 341 F.Supp.2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2004), opinion withdrawn in part on reconsideration, 2005 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Although plaintiff was unable to make out FMLA claim, court sanctioned defendant under Rule 26(g)(3) for failure to timely produce dispositive payroll data, and ordered it to pay plaintiff the reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting FMLA claim, including but not limited to the time her attorney spent in pretrial preparation of the claim and in prosecuting the claim at trial

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, FMLA claim

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Caruth, 786 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. App. 1990)

Key Insight: Entry of default judgment on issue of liability and imposition of other discovery sanctions against insurer for failure to produce computer data and other discovery abuses was not an abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Database

GTFM, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2000 WL 335558 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2000)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs’ motion for on-site inspection of computer records granted and defendant ordered to pay all plaintiffs’ expenses and legal fees unnecessarily expended due to defendant’s failure to make an accurate disclosure of its computer capabilities in December 1998

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized information re purchase of goods bearing plaintiffs’ trademarks

MasterCard Int’l v. Moulton, 2004 WL 1393992 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2004)

Key Insight: Finding no bad faith in defendant’s failure to preserve email since defendants simply persevered in their normal document retention practices, court nonetheless ruled that plaintiff would be allowed to prove the facts reflecting the non-retention of email and argue to the trier of fact that this destruction of evidence, in addition to other proof offered at trial, warranted certain inferences

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004)

Key Insight: Adverse inference jury instruction against defendant for its prelitigation destruction of tape-recorded voice radio communications between train crew and dispatchers on date of collision was proper, but refusal to permit testimony offered by defendant to rebut the adverse inference was abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Tape-recorded voice radio communications

Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F.Supp.2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004) (“Mosaid IV”)

Key Insight: Finding defendant’s actions went “far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct that led to the nonproduction of all technical e-mails,” district court affirmed the spoliation inference jury instruction and monetary sanctions imposed by magistrate

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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