Motion for Sanctions – Page 93 – Electronic Discovery Law

Brown v. ICF Int., 2009 WL 7127925 (M.D. La. Apr. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was ordered to produce a relevant recording and instead submitted an affidavit indicating that after a ?good faith search? she determined she was not in possession of the recording and had been mistaken in her representations to the contrary, the court granted defendant?s motion and ordered evidentiary sanctions for violating the court?s order to produce the recording after noting plaintiff?s failure to assert the possibility that she was not in possession of the recording prior to the entry of such an order; where plaintiff destroyed her handwritten notes after transcribing portions thereof, the court granted defendant?s request for an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recording, handwritten notes

Nutramax Labs. Inc. v. Theodosakis, 2009 WL 2778388 (D. Md. June 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for summary judgment and permitted additional discovery by plaintiffs as sanction for defendants? spoliation of its website where defendant removed relevant language from the site after learning of plaintiffs? lawsuit; addressing defendants argument that because plaintiff was able to preserve a copy of the site before the language was removed, there was no prejudice, the court indicated that defendants? ?questionable conduct? suggested that ?there may be other evidence relevant to this summary judgment that has yet to surface? and denied defendants? motion and allowed additional discovery ?to level the evidentiary playing field and to sanction defendants? improper conduct?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Website

R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 657 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff settled its claim of intentional spoliation against one defendant no longer in the case but failed to bring that claim against the defendants that remained and where the evidence was undisputed that the defendant who had settled all claims and was no longer a party to the litigation had maintained exclusive custody and control of the at-issue hard drives and plaintiff offered no evidence of the remaining defendants? involvement in destroying the relevant hard drives, the court held that the remaining defendants could not be sanctioned under either Ohio law or Federal law

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Lewis v. Ryan, 2009 WL 3486702 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court adopted recommendation of the magistrate judge to impose an adverse inference and exclude certain evidence as sanction for spoliation where defendants indicated they could not locate information, including ESI, which, according to records retention requirements, should have been in their possession at the time plaintiff propounded his request and thus should have been preserved and produced; court found ?clear and convincing evidence that defendants were ?at fault? for recklessly and negligently allowing the documents to be destroyed

Nature of Case: Civil rights complaint arising from service of pork to Muslim inmate

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy, 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

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

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

Dec 01 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

1100 West, LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered terminating sanctions against defendant and for defendant and its defense firm to pay plaintiff?s attorney?s fees where client made repeated misrepresentations regarding the use of certain chemicals at issue and failed to disclose relevant evidence about the same and where counsel failed to provide adequate guidance regarding the need to locate and produce responsive materials and allowed defendant to make repeated misrepresentations despite significant evidence that those representations were untrue

Nature of Case: Claims of property contamination

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

Dec 01 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

East Coast Brokers and Packers, Inc. v. Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc., 2009 WL 361281 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions arising from plaintiff?s alleged spoliation of ?pack data? (related to the number of tomatoes picked and packaged) where the alleged spoliation consisted of plaintiff?s entry of additional information to the ?pack data? following commencement of litigation but where the court found that no spoliation had occurred because the source of the newly added information was preserved, because the data was ?added as opposed to changed,? and because defendant had the right of cross examination at trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion for Sanctions