Motion for Sanctions – Page 93 – Electronic Discovery Law

Transcap Assoc., Inc. v. Euler Hermes Am. Credit Indemnity Co., 2009 WL 3260014 (N.D. Ill Oct. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant ?produced? archived marketing materials by directing plaintiff to website commonly known as the Way Back Machine (which itself warned of missing links and image in webpages) and did not establish or allege that it maintained material on the Way Back Machine in the ordinary course of business, and where the court determined defendant had not adequately investigated the existence of responsive documents in paper form, court granted motion to compel and ordered defendant to conduct ?a thorough search? for responsive documents and to produce them in paper or electronic format within 14 days; court ordered plaintiff to pay attorneys fees and costs and imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff for the numerous discovery violations addressed in the opinion

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage action

Electronic Data Involved: Way Back Machine

GW Equity LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 2009 WL 62168 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendations and denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for intentional spoliation of website content, despite defendants’ failure to suspend its policy allowing content to be edited, where evidence showed that no edits were made to the content at issue and thus plaintiff suffered no prejudice

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Website contents

Phillips v. Potter, 2009 WL 1362049 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to timely place a litigation hold and where electronic evidence was subsequently destroyed by an automatic deletion system, court declined to impose sanctions upon plaintiff?s failure to show that the evidence destroyed was relevant to her claims

Nature of Case: Violations of Title VII and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2009 WL 1949124 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Stating ?Taishan did not even come close to making reasonable efforts to carry out its preservation of materials??, court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions (attorney?s fees and costs) for third-party defendant?s failure to preserve relevant evidence in violation of its litigation related duty to preserve and, in some instances, in violation of its own document retention policies

Nature of Case: Breach of contract (non-conforming goods)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Estrada v. Dehli Cmty. Ctr., 2009 WL 3359194 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court imposed terminating sanctions against plaintiff and monetary sanctions upon counsel for egregious discovery abuses; client?s abuses included refusal to produce relevant information despite agreement and/or a court order to do so and willful installation of a new operating system on a computer subject to preservation and production, among other things; counsel?s abuses included delay in responding to discovery, misrepresentations to the court and opposing counsel, and refusal to produce relevant information despite a court order

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination/ sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Nat. Fin. Enter., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 87618 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where party failed to provide adequate explanation for non-disclosure of relevant email and engaged in other questionable behavior, including providing evasive responses to deposition questions, but where scope of prejudice to opposing party was ?not clear,? court declined to impose dispositive sanctions but ordered discovery re-opened to allow deposition regarding the email and surrounding issues

Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 334 (D. Conn. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where consulting firm retained by plaintiff destroyed soil samples and related electronic data absent implementation of a litigation hold and where plaintiff was obligated to preserve such evidence in light of the possibility of litigation and its knowledge of the evidence?s relevance to that litigation, court attributed the consulting firm?s destruction of the samples and data to plaintiff based upon ?the close ties? between them and imposed a sanction precluding the admission of evidence based on the destroyed evidence; court found that defendant?s failure to conduct its own testing upon notice of impending remediation to the relevant property did not constitute a disclaimer of defendant?s interest in plaintiff?s pre-remediation soil samples, especially where remediation destroyed defendant?s ability to verify plaintiff?s testing results or conduct additional tests and where defendant was not aware that the existing data in plaintiff?s possession would be destroyed

Nature of Case: Cost recovery action

Electronic Data Involved: Soil samples and related electronic data

Rahman v. The Smith & Wollensky Rest. Group, Inc., 2009 WL 773344 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s objections to defendants? production in pdf format ?without merit? where plaintiff failed to specify the preferred format of production and where absent such specification ?pdf format?is presumptively a ?reasonably useable form?? and similarly dismissed plaintiff?s substantive complaints regarding the production upon its determination that there was sufficient information for plaintiff?s expert to perform an analysis; court also declined to reconsider denial of spoliation sanctions in light of ambiguous deposition testimony regarding a possible delay in the implementation of a litigation hold and noted the absence of evidence that the gap in production was attributable to such delay

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Tag:Motion for Sanctions