Catagory:Case Summaries

Gen. Med., PC v. Morning View Care Ctrs., 2006 WL 2045890 (S.D. Ohio July 20, 2006)

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and tortious interference arising out of a contract for General Medicine to provide medical care at six of Morning View’s residential health care facilities. In this opinion, the district court adopted the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation that defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint as a discovery sanction be denied. Read More

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Sony Corp., 2006 WL 2039968 (W.D.N.Y. July 20, 2006)

In this case, the special master issued a Report and Recommendation recommending, inter alia, that Sony’s motion to compel Kodak to more specifically correlate information produced electronically via a computer server, CD-Roms and DVDs, to Sony’s document requests be denied. Sony objected to the Report and asked the court to direct Kodak to produce the documents in the form requested by Sony, or, in the alternative to produce documents in the form requested for certain of the more narrow document requests. Sony argued that if the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation were allowed to stand, it would be deprived of due process because it would be virtually impossible to find relevant documents "hidden" in the electronic equivalent of approximately 300 million pages of produced documents. Read More

Covucci v. Keane Consulting Group, Inc., 2006 WL 2004215 (Mass. Super. Ct. May 31, 2006)

In this age discrimination case, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as a sanction for the intentional spoliation of material evidence by plaintiff Covucci. After conducting a hearing and taking testimony from Covucci, the court found that defendants had proved by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff intentionally and in bad faith engaged in a pattern of conduct that encompassed the destruction of evidence relating to the creation of an email that was the central document in the case, provided false and misleading testimony at his deposition and at the evidentiary hearing, and that his conduct was calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate the case. The court further found that the plaintiff’s misconduct had prejudiced the defendants in their ability to defend against these claims and that dismissal of the complaint was warranted. Read More

India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 2006 WL 2023396 (E.D. Wis. July 13, 2006)

In this case involving claims and counterclaims alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation, the court ruled on plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Read More

Trammell v. Anderson Coll., 2006 WL 1997425 (D.S.C. July 17, 2006)

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiffs alleged that plaintiff Dr. Jena Trammell, a tenured professor at defendant Anderson College, was subjected to a hostile work environment by another professor (Dr. Teitloff) and that the College retaliated against her for filing a claim with the EEOC. Read More

Turner v. Resort Condos. Int’l, LLC, 2006 WL 1990379 (S.D. Ind. July 13, 2006)

In this opinion, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s pregnancy discrimination claim, and denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on alleged discovery abuses. In ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the court found that plaintiff had not come forward with any evidence that raised a reasonable dispute about the reasons behind her termination. “She has noted the use of two font sizes on a single document and metadata suggesting that one of the [Reduction in Force] lists was modified after the lawsuit was filed. However, the most recent document production and the deposition testimony of RCI’s in-house information technology witness establish that at least nine emails confirmed Turner’s inclusion in the RIF before she told anyone at RCI that she was pregnant.” Read More

McDowell v. Gov’t of D.C., 2006 WL 1933809 (D.D.C. July 11, 2006)

In an earlier opinion, summarized here, Magistrate Judge John A. Facciola denied the plaintiff’s request for judgment to be entered against the defendant for various discovery failings. The court concluded that the discovery dispute could be adequately remedied by the imposition of attorneys’ fees and costs against defendants and the possibility of a jury instruction. In this opinion, the court evaluated plaintiffs’ fee petition and awarded plaintiff $72,910 in fees and costs.

Read More

Marrero Hernandez v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 2006 WL 1967364 (D. Puerto Rico July 11, 2006)

In this opinion, the court used a five-factor test to conclude that the defendant’s “inadvertent” production of privileged materials effected a waiver.

On March 14, 2006, a third-party defendant in the case filed a motion for permission to file a counterclaim against Esso. Attached to the proposed counterclaim were several documents that were stamped with the prefix "VEGAC." Those documents had been disclosed by Esso during the months of November and December 2005. Three days later, Esso recognized the exhibits as privileged and claimed that they were inadvertently produced due to an "errant mouse click."

Read More

Peskoff v. Faber, 2006 WL 1933483 (D.D.C. July 11, 2006)

Plaintiff Jonathan Peskoff sued to recover damages for financial injury resulting from defendant Michael Faber’s operation of a venture capital fund, called NextPoint Partners, LP, and the fund’s related entities. NextPoint GP, LLC ("NextPoint GP") was the general partner of the venture capital fund. Both Peskoff and Faber were managing members of NextPoint GP. Peskoff alleged fraud and related claims.

Read More

Washington Alder LLC v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2004 WL 4076674 (D. Or. May 5, 2004)

In this recently published opinion, the court set forth its corrected order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on Weyerhaeuser for failing to preserve electronic and paper records potentially relating to antitrust litigation after June 8, 1999, when Weyerhaeuser was notified of a forthcoming antitrust claim. Plaintiff claimed that Weyerhaeuser apparently did not issue a records retention order until April 2003, and that documents potentially relevant to the case – both electronic and paper – may have been destroyed prior to then, either deliberately or by failing to take the steps necessary to preserve those documents. Plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury that it may draw an adverse inference from the destruction of documents.

Read More