Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
Tango Transp., LLC v. Transp. Int. Pool, Inc., 2009 WL 3254882 (W.D. La. Oct. 8, 2009)
2
Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)
3
Plunk v. Village of Elwood, Ill., 2009 WL 1444436 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2009)
4
Telequest Int?l Corp. v. Dedicated Business Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 690996 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2009)
5
Consol. Edison CO. of NY, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. U.S., 2009 WL 3418533 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 21, 2009)
6
In re Krause, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009)
7
Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2009 WL 4798117 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2009)
8
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4346062 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009)
9
Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009)
10
Gamby v. First Nat?l Bank of Omaha, 2009 WL 127782 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2009)

Tango Transp., LLC v. Transp. Int. Pool, Inc., 2009 WL 3254882 (W.D. La. Oct. 8, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant established plaintiff?s breach of its duty to preserve emails by failing to timely issue litigation hold notices to all ?key players? but failed to establish defendants? bad faith or the relevance of the lost messages, court declined to impose adverse inference sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions, including defendant?s attorneys fees associated with the motion

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, other ESI

Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Plunk v. Village of Elwood, Ill., 2009 WL 1444436 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where audio tape of council meeting was lost despite duty to preserve and where defendants failed to rebut plaintiffs? allegation that the tape was erased or replaced beyond an unsupported assertion of inadvertence, court precluded defendants from relying on occurrences at the meeting and ordered an adverse inferences to the jury; where evidence indicated computers subject to preservation were defragged repeatedly, and perhaps erased intentionally, and where defendants failed to preserve 6 hard drives despite agreeing do so, court ordered jury to be informed of failure to preserve, that defendants were precluded from arguing that the absence of evidence supported their contentions, and that the jury would be given permission to draw an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape, hard drives

Telequest Int?l Corp. v. Dedicated Business Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 690996 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2009)

Key Insight: Where forensic examination of defendant?s hard drive revealed the deletion of electronic evidence using wiping software and where at the time of the deletion defendant was subject to a duty to preserve, court declined to impose default judgment but ordered an adverse inference and monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Nature of Case: Claims of fraud, misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drive

Consol. Edison CO. of NY, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. U.S., 2009 WL 3418533 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 21, 2009)

Key Insight: In very long and complicated tax litigation, court found no spoliation absent a duty to preserve where, at the time the data was lost due to migration to a new email system, plaintiffs were involved in routine audit and administrative procedures likely to resolve the relevant dispute and thus had no reason to believe litigation would necessarily ensue (?Indeed, not every dispute with the IRS leads to litigation or ?anticipates? litigation); where counsel provided contradictory statements as to whether litigation was anticipated such that a duty to preserve would have arisen, court determined counsel was essentially unreliable and thus relied on ?other testimony or exhibits? and relied on counsel?s testimony only ?sparingly, when it was uncontested?

Nature of Case: Tax litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In re Krause, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009)

Key Insight: On appeal, court upheld sanctions for intentional spoliation and other misconduct, including seizure of debtor?s passport and partial summary judgment, where such sanctions were within the discretion of the court and warranted by debtor?s behavior

Nature of Case: Government brought adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtor to except his tax debt from discharge and declare various entities his alter ego

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, email

Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2009 WL 4798117 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff neither objected to nor complied with the magistrate judge?s orders to narrow his discovery request upon the determination that plaintiff?s requests for the entire contents of his laptop and that of numerous other ?key players? was overbroad, the district court found nothing ?clearly erroneous or contrary to law? in the magistrate judge?s subsequent orders that plaintiff?s counsel be barred from taking additional depositions until the discovery requests were narrowed and for plaintiff?s counsel to pay defendants? attorney?s fees incurred for pursuing the narrowing of those requests

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4346062 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants attested to the adequacy of their search for discovery but could not describe their search efforts in detail, court noted its inability to ?say with certainty? whether defendants had fulfilled their discovery obligations and declined to rule on plaintiff?s third motion for sanctions ?until it [was] satisfied that the standards for preservation of electronic evidence?have been met or not met?; court ordered an investigation by a third party expert into ?whether defendants have met the standard for preservation of electronic evidence and disclosed all relevant evidence? with the cost to be borne by defendants

Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced only portions of a requested manual in an alleged effort to save expenses despite its ability to reproduce the whole manual ?almost instantaneously? by computer to compact disc, and where defendant failed to produce other easily accessible and relevant documents, court declined to enter default judgment because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice but ordered monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gamby v. First Nat?l Bank of Omaha, 2009 WL 127782 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant repeatedly violated its discovery obligations, including making misrepresentations of unavailability despite later revelations that documents were available from shared electronic source, and in light of explanations ?entirely unworthy of credence,? among other things, court struck answer of defendant and ordered judgment by default to plaintiff on issue of liability

Nature of Case: Claims arising from the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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