Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)
2
Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2004 WL 2550306 (D.N.J. July 7, 2004) (“Mosaid I”)
3
Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2004 WL 417193 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004)
4
Long Island Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Stony Brook Diagnostic Assoc., 728 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
5
Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 2004 WL 764085 (D. Kan. Apr. 8, 2004)
6
Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 224 F.R.D. 595 (D.N.J. 2004) (“Mosaid II”)
7
Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 1098919 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2004)
8
Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Caruth, 786 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. App. 1990)
9
GTFM, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2000 WL 335558 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2000)
10
MasterCard Int’l v. Moulton, 2004 WL 1393992 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2004)

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)

Key Insight: Based on in camera review, court granted defendant’s motion to compel based on the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, ordered production of other documents on same subject matter and further ruled that discovery would be allowed regarding documents produced and on the issue of sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes

Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2004 WL 2550306 (D.N.J. July 7, 2004) (“Mosaid I”)

Key Insight: Magistrate granted various discovery sanctions requested by plaintiff, including monetary sanctions and a jury instruction adverse to defendants based on destruction and non-production of email

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2004 WL 417193 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004)

Key Insight: Motion for sanctions for destruction of email denied since plaintiff failed to follow procedure set forth in court’s prior order which would have required plaintiff to file a petition seeking the appointment of a computer forensics expert, and instead waited over seven months to bring the issue to the court in the form of a motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Long Island Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Stony Brook Diagnostic Assoc., 728 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Key Insight: Trial court erred in not dismissing defendants’ counterclaim and third party complaint as sanction for spoliation of evidence — contrary to court’s orders, defendants purged databases and produced backup tapes that were compromised and unusable

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment that it was not in default of license agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases and backup tapes

Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 2004 WL 764085 (D. Kan. Apr. 8, 2004)

Key Insight: Defendant’s response to (overbroad) document request, which directed requesting party to defendant’s web site where relevant HR policies and a particular employee handbook could be retrieved, was not insufficient response; court narrowed request and ordered production of any additional documents within 20 days; no sanctions warranted

Nature of Case: Former employee alleged violations of free speech, due process and gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic HR policies and manuals

Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 224 F.R.D. 595 (D.N.J. 2004) (“Mosaid II”)

Key Insight: Following additional briefing by parties on attorneys’ fees and adverse inference instruction, magistrate awarded plaintiff $563,843 in fees and $2,998 in costs for its counsel’s efforts on sanctions motion and to secure discovery and crafted jury instruction based upon that adopted in Zubulake V

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 1098919 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2004)

Key Insight: Sanctions not warranted where plaintiffs made ?tenuous allegation? without any specific evidentiary support that defendants had implemented a new email document retention policy after litigation was commenced and that potentially relative emails may have been destroyed pursuant to the policy

Nature of Case: Claimed violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

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