Motion for Sanctions – Page 86 – Electronic Discovery Law

IMRA Am., Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corp., 2010 WL 2812999 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court imposed spoliation sanction and precluded plaintiff and its expert from offering opinion or evidence on any simulations relied upon in forming the basis of plaintiff?s Second Infringement Report where the input data upon which the simulations relied were lost in a computer crash and where plaintiff failed to timely disclose the destruction

Electronic Data Involved: Input data forming basis for expert’s report

Antonio v. Sec. Servs. Of Am., LLC, 2010 WL 2858252 (D. Md. July 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve relevant computers during its consolidation of operations and failed to preserve data during conversion of it?s IT network, the district court overruled defendant?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding that the spoliation was ?more than grossly negligent? and the imposition of an adverse inference but sustained defendant?s objections ?to the extent that the finding that the spoliation was more than grossly negligent [was] based on defendant?s limited production of emails, missing personnel record, and untimeliness in participating in discovery ? actions that ?do not indicated willful or intentional spoliation of evidence?

Electronic Data Involved: Computers/hard drives, ESI

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 3087472 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling electronic production of defendants? general ledger and specifically rejected defendants? Rule 34 argument that because plaintiff failed to state the form of production, it could produce in hard copy, where defendants failed to specify a particular form of production in their response, where defendants failed to timely raise the Rule 34 issue (despite filing several motions discussing production of the ledger), and where defendants also failed to produce the evidence in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form as is required by the rule; a Motion to Stay this order was thereafter denied, See Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage 2010 WL 3218386 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 7, 2010)

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

Nycomed U.S. Inc. v. Glenmark Generics, Ltd., 2010 WL 3173785 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For failing to abide by its good-faith discovery obligations by withholding from production, without justification, certain relevant ESI and ?willfully fail[ing] to search two important and obvious repositories for responsive ESI?, the court determined that ?substantial monetary fines, payable to Nycomed and to the Clerk of the Court, are appropriate sanctions, as they will adequately advance ?the prophylactic, punitive and remedial rationales? of discovery sanctions? and ordered Glenmark to pay $100,000 to Nycomed ?to cover a portion of its costs? and to pay an additional $25,000 to the Clerk of the Court

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Jeanes-Kemp, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2010 WL 3522028 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for protective order as to two inadvertently produced privileged documents where the production was inadvertent, where discovery was reviewed by three attorneys prior to production and thus efforts to prevent disclosure were reasonable, and where upon notice of disclosure, counsel took immediate steps to retrieve the documents; court declined to sanction defense counsel for threatening use of the inadvertently disclosed documents where plaintiff?s motion for protective order was granted and where defendants had not yet had the opportunity to use the documents as threatened

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced emails

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Wash. Shoe Co., 2010 WL 3981694 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege resulting from commercial copy service?s inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials to plaintiff?s counsel where the disclosure was clearly inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect the privilege including clear instructions to the copy service and clearly marking the documents as privileged, and where defense counsel acted promptly to rectify the error after learning of the disclosure; court rejected arguments that defense counsel waived privilege by a delay in seeking the documents? return where such delay was directly related to plaintiff?s decision to notify only defense counsel?s paralegal of the disclosure, who inexcusably failed to pass that information on to counsel, and where defense counsel requested the documents? return on the same day he actually learned of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., 2010 WL 4004164 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Based upon suspicious timing of the disappearance of ESI, the court inferred that evidence had been destroyed in bad faith by a person who knew that it would ?very well reveal information Defendants did not want revealed? and ordered an adverse inference instruction to the jury at trial, that plaintiff should be permitted to amend its claims to add a claim for exemplary damages based on the adverse inference, that defendants pay plaintiff?s costs and fees, and that defendants make unredacted mirror images of the hard drives of each employee of the corporate defendant at defendants? expense, to be delivered to plaintiff by a date certain; hard drives were covered by a previously entered protective order

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Cherrington Asia Ltd. v. A&L Underground, Inc., 2010 WL 126190 (D. Kan. Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied sanctions for defendants? alleged ?document dump? of a hard drive containing both responsive and non-responsive documents as maintained in the ordinary course of business where, upon plaintiffs? initial objection, defendants re-produced the hard drive with irrelevant documents segregated and with a tool allowing the hard drive to be word-searched and where, despite plaintiffs? alleged discovery of evidence reflecting defendants? purposeful efforts to obstruct discovery, plaintiffs waited 15 months to bring their motion and were thus ?simply too late?

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Habtegiorgis v. OIC of Washington, 2010 WL 2232142 (E.D. Wash. June 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding plaintiff?s requests ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,? court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce certain ESI and to allow plaintiffs to search defendant?s server and network using the terms of plaintiff?s choosing and ordered that defendant provide information regarding the creation of backup disks and other evidence; court granted plaintiff?s motion for the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ahroner v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, 913 N.Y.S.2d 181 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court upheld grant of adverse inference for intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a hard drive ordered to be produced for inspection and noted that because the destruction was intentional or grossly negligent, the court?s inference as to the erased emails? relevance was proper

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Tag:Motion for Sanctions