Search Results for “coleman” – Electronic Discovery Law

Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where expert witness destroyed relevant surgical logs and resisted production of alternative evidence upon the objection that a review of all patient files would be unduly burdensome, court denied motion to compel production of the logs but ordered that as a sanction for spoliation, the expert would not be allowed to testify as to the number of fat grafting procedures he had performed, and would have to be qualified as an expert based on other information

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Surgical records

Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant produced employment statistics from its database on a CD, but not in the format that plaintiffs wanted, court found that defendant had complied with Rule 34(b) requirement that ESI be produced ?in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable,? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment statistics

Court Denies Further Sanctions, Including Shifting of Burden of Proof Based on Coleman Decision

Dec 14 2005

Jinks-Umstead v. England, 2005 WL 3312947 (D.D.C. Dec. 7, 2005) In this matter, a previous decision from which was summarized here, Lavonne Jinks-Umstead alleged that the United States Navy discriminated against her based on her race when it failed to provide her with adequate staff assistance. A jury verdict was granted in favor of Defendant, but a new trial was ordered based on Defendant’s pre-trial failure to produce Work in Progress (“WIP”) reports and the erroneous admission into evidence of certain emails. The new trial is scheduled to begin on January 18, 2006. In this memorandum opinion, Judge Kessler addressed pending motions. Read More

Perelman Awarded an Additional $850 Million in Punitive Damages in Coleman v. Morgan Stanley

May 19 2005

These damages bring the total awarded Perelman to $1.45 billion in this landmark case where Judge Maas ruled that Morgan Stanley had conspired with Sunbeam to defraud Perelman. Judge Maas’ ruling was due to frustration caused by Morgan Stanley’s failure to produce email.

In his closing argument, Morgan Stanley attorney Mark Hansen said that the failure to produce email was due to error and was not indicative of efforts to conceal evidence.

Click here for the story from Reuters.

Perelman Awarded $604.3 Million in Coleman v. Morgan Stanley

May 16 2005

A Florida jury awarded these damages in connection with Morgan Stanley helping Sunbeam to falsely inflate its finances. An award for punitive damages is still expected. Morgan Stanley said it would appeal, and additional discussions with a mediator are planned.

Judge Maas had instructed the jury to assume that Morgan Stanley helped Sunbeam inflate its earnings, so Perelman only had to establish detrimental reliance. This instruction had been issued because Morgan Stanley failed to produce email.

More detail can be found here on Bloomberg’s news site.

Morgan Stanley’s Failure to Produce Documents Found Offensive; Coleman’s Renewed Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Is Granted (in part)

Mar 28 2005

Judge Maass issued this order on March 23 in Coleman v. Morgan Stanley, a case in which Coleman Holdings is seeking $680 million in losses and $2 billion in punitive damages in connection with Morgan Stanley helping Sunbeam to falsely inflate its finances. Read More

Judge Maass Grants Adverse Inference Instruction in Coleman v. Morgan Stanley

Mar 24 2005

Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 2005 WL 679071 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005)

Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. (“CPH”) sued Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (“MS & Co.”) for fraud in connection with CPH’s sale of its stock in Coleman, Inc. to Sunbeam Corporation. Establishing whether MS & Co. had knowledge of Sunbeam’s fraudulent scheme was central to the case, and CPH sought access to MS & Co. documents, including email. Read More

Florida Supreme Court Denies Review of Decision Reversing $1.58 Billion Judgment Against Morgan Stanley

Dec 14 2007

Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., No. SC07-1251 (Fla. Dec. 12, 2007)

In a brief order issued on December 12, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court denied Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc.’s petition for review of the Florida state appellate court decision which reversed the $1.58 billion against Morgan Stanley. (View our March 21, 2007 post regarding that reversal, and read the appellate court opinion, here.) The Florida Supreme Court advised that no motion for rehearing would be entertained. A copy of the order is available here.

$1.58 Billion Judgment Against Morgan Stanley Reversed

Mar 21 2007

Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. v. Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc., No. 4D05-2606 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2007)

In a 2-1 decision, a Florida state appellate court today reversed the $1.58 billion judgment against Morgan Stanley in the litigation brought by Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. Judgment was reversed on the grounds that plaintiff failed to prove compensatory damages by not establishing the fraud-free value of the Sunbeam stock on the date of the merger transaction. Since the decision on that issue was dispositive, the court did not reach the other issues on appeal, including whether the trial court improperly entered a partial default against Morgan Stanley as a sanction for discovery misconduct, and whether the trial court erred in denying Morgan Stanley a fair opportunity to contest and mitigate evidence of litigation misconduct presented during the punitive damages phase of the trial.

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed both the compensatory and punitive damage awards and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment for Morgan Stanley. Note, the decision is not final until the disposition of a timely filed motion for rehearing.

A copy of the decision is available here.

Former Counsel for Morgan Stanley Successfully Petitions for Writ Directing Trial Court to Strike Revocation of Pro Hac Vice Status

May 25 2006

Clare v. Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 1409137 (Fla. Ct. App. May 24, 2006)

The petitioner in this case, Thomas A. Clare, is a partner in the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, who was admitted to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Morgan Stanley & Company in the suit brought by Coleman Holdings, Inc. in Florida state court. In that capacity, the petitioner served as the primary intermediary between Morgan Stanley and Coleman on discovery matters. The petitioner’s pro hac vice admission was revoked in the trial court’s March 23, 2005 order granting the entry of default judgment against Morgan Stanley (a copy of which is available here). On the same day the court entered the order, the court also heard Kirkland and Ellis’s motion to withdraw from its representation of Morgan Stanley. During that hearing, the court commented that there was “nothing in this record that indicates that any misconduct on the part of Kirkland and Ellis was anything other than as a consequence of their serving as messengers. . . . ” Read More

Search Results For -coleman