Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
DeMeo v. Kean, 754 F. Supp. 2d 435 (N.D.N.Y. 2010)
2
Victor v. R.M. Lawler, 2010 WL 521118 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2010)
3
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 2010816 (N.D. Miss. May 17, 2010)
4
Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 235 P.3d 265 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)
5
Meridian Fin. Advisors Ltd. v. Pence, 2010 WL 2772840 (S.D. Ind. July 12, 2010)
6
Streit v. Elec. Mobility Controls, LLC, 2010 WL 4687797 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2010)
7
Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)
8
Soileau v. Smith?s True Value & Rental, 40 So.3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2010)
9
Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)
10
Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)

DeMeo v. Kean, 754 F. Supp. 2d 435 (N.D.N.Y. 2010)

Key Insight: Finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support plaintiff?s claim of willful or intentional spoliation and sufficient direct evidence that defendants? handling of the relevant surveillance footage was ?at least negligent,? the court declined to order terminating sanctions where plaintiff was ?not at a complete loss? in light of alternative evidence to support his claims, but ordered an adverse inference, the language of which will be addressed at trial

Nature of Case: Violations of state constitutional rights and state tort claims arising from an altercation

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Victor v. R.M. Lawler, 2010 WL 521118 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2010)

Key Insight: Court deferred judgment regarding motion for spoliation sanctions for missing video surveillance tapes of the relevant ?cell extraction? pending defendant?s production of prison policies regarding the proper preservation of such video where the court regarded the ?question of spoliation? to be ?closely intertwined with the issue of whether the defendants followed their own operations procedures in preserving evidence?

Nature of Case: Prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 2010816 (N.D. Miss. May 17, 2010)

Key Insight: For defendant?s egregious discovery violations uncovered with the assistance of a special master, including failing to adequately search for responsive materials and lying to the court about such searching and other, related topics, court indicated likelihood that it would find as a matter of law that an agency relationship existed between the offending defendant and another entity implicated in the underlying accident claims but, recognizing that ?responsibility for punishing BL for its discovery violations lies with the court, rather than the jury? declined to order an adverse inference and instead set the matter for hearing where proper sanctions and the egregious conduct of counsel would be discussed before a final determination was made

Nature of Case: Claims arising from bus accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 235 P.3d 265 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: Where the trial court concluded that defendant committed discovery violations in bad faith, including failing to timely produce responsive information, withholding responsive information even after a court order to produce, failing to provide an explanation for the failure to produce certain responsive information, producing certain documents only after being presented with evidence of their existence by plaintiff, and purging responsive documents from relevant files during the pendency of litigation, and where a lesser sanctions were properly considered, appellate court found ?reasonable grounds supporting the court?s decision? and affirmed the sanction of default judgment

Nature of Case: Violation of civil rights, selective enforcement of the law, failure to supervise, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard copy

Meridian Fin. Advisors Ltd. v. Pence, 2010 WL 2772840 (S.D. Ind. July 12, 2010)

Key Insight: For the receiver?s failure to disclose the existence and specific location of relevant emails by the required initial disclosure deadline pursuant to Rule 26, the court imposed sanctions and precluded the receiver?s use of such ESI at trial; for the receiver?s failure to disclose its access to defendants? privileged communications (including accessing, through the actions of a third party, the personal and privileged emails of one defendant by accessing his personal email accounts without his knowledge), the court imposed monetary sanctions, including payment of the costs of investigating and bringing the motion as well as payment of one defendant?s attorney?s fees during the time his co-defendant provided the receiver with access to his privileged communications

Nature of Case: Receiver filed suit against former officers and employees for myriad of claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, civil conspiracy, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Streit v. Elec. Mobility Controls, LLC, 2010 WL 4687797 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s multiple attempts at starting plaintiff?s car following the underlying accident resulted in multiple ?blocks? of data being overwritten, the court denied sanctions absent evidence that the loss was intentional (where the imposition of sanctions required a showing of bad faith) and because the relevant ?event? data was also recorded in alternative source that was fully preserved and plaintiff offered no evidence that the relevant data was recorded only to the lost data blocks and not the available alternative source

Nature of Case: Personal injury/product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Black box data from automobile

Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for a myriad of alleged violations, including failure to preserve emails and failure to adequately search for responsive ESI, where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of such violations and where the court found defendant?s search was reasonable; court ordered defendant to show cause why it failed to produce emails from certain supervisors in response to the court?s prior order where plaintiff offered evidence that such emails existed

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Soileau v. Smith?s True Value & Rental, 40 So.3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s order finding defendants in contempt, ordering their immediate production of outstanding discovery and establishing facts sufficient to satisfy 2 of the 4 elements of plaintiff?s liability claim where defendants failed to timely produce relevant discovery in violation of the trial court?s order and provided no satisfactory explanation for such failure, and where the trial court determined that defendants were ?hiding? discoverable information

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from alleged product defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: On appeal from the trial court?s order of dismissal, where the evidence indicated that plaintiff repeatedly utilized scrubbing software to delete data subject to preservation and which the court had ordered the plaintiff to produce and likely discarded other relevant external drives, the appellate court considered the six factors contemplated by the trial court when determining the proper sanction, namely, ?surprise, prejudice, the type of evidence at issue, diligence, timeliness of objection, and good faith? and affirmed the sanction upon finding ?absolutely no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion?

Nature of Case: Defamation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drives, external drives

Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged spoliation of surveillance video where in the case of an incident the surveillance video was to be copied from the hard drive it was stored on to a CD, but where there was insufficient evidence that such a CD was ever made or existed, and where plaintiff failed to contact defendant regarding her lawsuit until 5 months had passed – a period of time far longer than the video would have been preserved on the hard drive in the usual course of business

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

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