Insufficient Diligence in Planning and Executing Search for Responsive Documents Warrants Monetary Sanctions, but not Default Judgment
Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 2006 WL 1537394 (D. Kan. June 1, 2006)
In this product liability action involving a Touriva child safety seat, plaintiffs sought sanctions against the defendant pursuant to Rule 37 for various claimed discovery abuses. Among other things, plaintiffs argued that DJG had attempted to conceal a crucial and damaging document known as “CEA 416.” (Plaintiffs explained that “CEA” was an acronym for a “Capital Expenditure Authorization” and was a DJG form which provided a description and justification for a design modification made during the life of a product.) Plaintiffs asked the court to strike DJG’s Answer and preclude DJG from pursuing any of its affirmative defenses in this matter, which would effectively result in the entry of default judgment against DJG. Read More