Key Insight: are the defendants acting in bad faith by not confirming that evidence doesn’t exist or was it not preserved, in that case is it sanctionable
Nature of Case: violation of Securities act, violation of the exchange act and rule 10b-5, unregistered securities offerings
Electronic Data Involved: “back office data” information as to whether defendants explored public offering
Keywords: bad faith, sanctions, spoliation, public offering
CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 5511 (AT) (JCF), 2016 WL 154116 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016)
In this case, which raised “significant issues concerning the reach of newly amended Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the standard of proof governing spoliation, and the relief appropriate for the destruction of electronically stored information,” Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV addressed Plaintiffs’ intentional alteration of relevant emails, as evidenced by the discovery of the original emails “which had been deleted, albeit not without leaving a digital imprint.” Finding that newly amended Rule 37 applied and that remedies were available pursuant to both subsections (e)(1) and (e)(2), the Magistrate Judge noted that “drastic sanctions are not mandatory” and ordered that Plaintiffs were precluded from relying on “their version” of the emails to demonstrate notice to Defendants of the use of the at-issue mark and that Plaintiffs would bear the “costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the defendants in establishing the plaintiffs’ misconduct and in securing relief.”
Key Insight: personnel files are not maintained by the custodian, they are maintained by HR and contain personal information and are not discoverable
Nature of Case: products liability
Electronic Data Involved: employee personnel files of people that plaintiffs want to depose
Keywords: discoverability, relevancy, personnel files
Key Insight: Defendant issues subpoenas to Plaintiffs former employers. Court quashed the subpoenas.
Nature of Case: discrimination and retaliation
Electronic Data Involved: subpoenas to plaintiffs former employers.
Keywords: subpoenas
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF, 2016 WL 146574 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016)
In this case, the court addressed Defendant’s motion to compel production of additional discovery and, applying newly amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), determined that Defendant’s request was “precisely the kind of disproportionate discovery that Rule 26—old or new—was intended to preclude.” Accordingly, the motion was denied.
Key Insight: New trial is ordered when city intentionally withholds or inadequately searches for police recordings.
Nature of Case: use of excessive force by police
Electronic Data Involved: police dispatcher recording
Keywords: OMEC record, traffic stop, police dispatch, zone 6 audio
Key Insight: if sanctions can be granted for inconsistent and incomplete response from opposing party
Nature of Case: violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
Electronic Data Involved: initial interrogatories and verifications
Keywords: spoliation, sanctions, default judgment, defunct business, unreachable party
Matthew Enter., Inc. v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, No. 13-cv-04236-BLF, 2015 WL 8482256 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015)
In this case, the court declined to compel production from Plaintiff’s employees’ personal email accounts because Plaintiff did not have control of the emails for purposes of discovery. As to the contents of Plaintiff’s “customer communications database” maintained by a third party vendor, however, the court found that Plaintiff did have control of the ESI, as evidenced by the prior production of certain data at Plaintiff’s request.
Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No.3:15-cv-1026-M, 2015 WL 8010920 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2015)
In this case, the court addressed Defendant’s Motion to Compel discovery responses and undertook substantial analysis of the effects of newly amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 on the burdens of parties’ resisting discovery, concluding they had not fundamentally changed.
United States v. Vaughn, No. 14-23 (JLL), 2015 WL 6948577 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2015)
In this criminal case, a pro se defendant sought sanctions, including dismissal of the indictment, for the Government’s failure to preserve text messages relevant to its investigation. Upon examination of the facts, including the Government’s acknowledged failure to preserve certain text messages and constantly changing explanations surrounding that failure as well as the “different level of diligence” applied to different text messages (care was taken to preserve certain messages, but not others), the court determined sanctions were warranted. Accordingly, the court ordered that the Government would be precluded from using any text messages in its case-in-chief and reserved judgment until trial regarding the propriety of an adverse inference instruction.
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.