Archive - April 2017

1
Aronstein v. Thompson Creek Metals (D. Colo., 2017)
2
U.S. Supreme Court Considers “Inherent Authority to Sanction a Litigant for Bad-faith Conduct” by Ordering Payment of Opponent’s “Legal Fees,” Reverses and Remands
3
Khatibi v. Bonura (S.D.N.Y, 2017)
4
United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., No. 2: 11-cv-05097-FMO (PLAx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017)
5
US ex rel Scutellaro v. Capitol Supply (D.D.C., 2017)
6
In re Pickrell (Tex. App. 10th Dist. , 2017)
7
Garcia v. City of Santa Clara (Northern District of California, 2017)
8
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger (U. S. Supreme Court, 2017)
9
Elhannon LLC v. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., No. 2:14-cv-262 (D. Vt. Apr. 18, 2017)
10
Tchatat v. OHara (Southern District of NY, 2017)

Aronstein v. Thompson Creek Metals (D. Colo., 2017)

Key Insight: Spoliation sanctions denied because the documents still exist, and were only transferred.

Nature of Case: False representation of a company to others and the public

Electronic Data Involved: information from a computer and shared drive

Keywords: Transferrence of ESI, spoliation sanctions,

View Case Opinion

U.S. Supreme Court Considers “Inherent Authority to Sanction a Litigant for Bad-faith Conduct” by Ordering Payment of Opponent’s “Legal Fees,” Reverses and Remands

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. ___ (2017)

In this rare opinion from our Supreme Court addressing discovery, the court considered “a federal court’s inherent authority to sanction a litigant for bad-faith conduct by ordering it to pay the other side’s legal fees.” The court held that “such an order is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct—or put another way, to the fees that party would not have incurred but for the bad faith.” Because neither the trial court nor the appellate court applied the correct legal standard, the judgment of the Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Read More

United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., No. 2: 11-cv-05097-FMO (PLAx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017)

Key Insight: Failure to issue a litigation hold, misrepresentation that a hold had been issued, spoliation of evidence, attorney fee award.

Nature of Case: water-protection law violation

Electronic Data Involved: Not specified. However, likely, email and other electronic records.

Keywords: spoliation, litigation hold, lodestar calculation, special master.

View Case Opinion

US ex rel Scutellaro v. Capitol Supply (D.D.C., 2017)

Key Insight: Whether FRCP 37(e) applies where the duty to preserve does not arise out of the anticipation or conduct of litigation, whether sanctions issued under a court’s inherent power were appropriate

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: country of origin data

Keywords: Country of Origin documentation, adverse inference, Trade Agreements Act, inherent power, overwrite, direct proof or disproof

View Case Opinion

Garcia v. City of Santa Clara (Northern District of California, 2017)

Key Insight: Sanction and adverse inference inappropriate because nothing lost/destroyed was highly probative

Nature of Case: Excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: emails, reports

Keywords: adverse inference

View Case Opinion

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger (U. S. Supreme Court, 2017)

Key Insight: Slow responses to discovery; withholding information; Discovery fraud

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Not specifically stated “documents”

Keywords: Attorney Fees; Bad Faith; Withholding information; Misconduct; Sanctions must be compensatory not punitive; Court’s inherent authority; But-For test

View Case Opinion

Elhannon LLC v. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., No. 2:14-cv-262 (D. Vt. Apr. 18, 2017)

Key Insight: Defendant has inadequate production even when supplemented. Judge ordered meet-and-confer to work out some of the disagreements. Judge did not give either side sanctions.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract; Consumer Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail; Electronic Database

Keywords: Meet-and-confer; Inadequate Production; Supplemental Production

View Case Opinion

Tchatat v. OHara (Southern District of NY, 2017)

Key Insight: Arrest did not trigger a duty for defendants to preserve video of alleged beating before arrest

Nature of Case: Wrongful arrest

Electronic Data Involved: video, electronic photos

Keywords: triggering duty to preserve

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.