Catagory:Case Summaries

Tracy v. Financial Insurance Management Corp., 2005 WL 2100261 (S.D.Ind. Aug. 22, 2005)

Justin Tracy (“Tracy”) filed a Motion for Sanctions under Rule 37 and Other Relief in a case involving allegations of Americans with Disabilities Act and Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations. Tracy claimed that Financial Insurance Management Corporation (“FIMC”) had interfered with the discovery process by producing email at the eleventh hour after the deposition of key witnesses had commenced. The motion, which also sought relief for other alleged discovery violations, was granted in part and denied in part. Read More

Foust, et al. v. McFarland, et al., 698 N.W. 2d 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)

On May 15, 1998, Jeffrey L. Foust (“Foust”) suffered brain and other injuries when his vehicle was struck by a truck driven by John R. McFarland (“McFarland”). The truck had failed to yield at an intersection where traffic signals had been disabled by a storm. A jury awarded Plaintiffs $11,310,464, despite a finding that Foust had intentionally destroyed electronic evidence. Read More

Broccoli, et al. v. Echostar Communications Corp., et al., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D.Md. 2005)

Dino Broccoli (“Broccoli”) sued Echostar Communications Corp. and Dish Network Corp. (collectively referred to as “Echostar”) and Stacie Andersen (“Andersen”) in connection with employment discrimination. He claims that Andersen, a human resources manager at Echostar, created a hostile work environment via sexual harassment, caused termination of his employment because he rebuffed her advances, and subsequently provided false and defamatory employment references. Broccoli prevailed on claims of breach of contract and violation of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act, but not on claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Read More

Bullis v. Nichols, 2005 WL 1838634 (W.D.Wash. Aug. 1, 2005)

Alana K. Bullis (“Bullis”) filed a claim which apparently alleges that City of Dupont (“City”) public officials are willing to “chill” her speech via an email campaign. In connection with this claim, Bullis sought email from the City via a subpoena duces tecum, which was issued on June 28, 2005. Read More

Wild v. Alster, et al., 377 F.Supp.2d 186 (D.D.C. 2005)

Susan Wild (“Wild”) sued Dr. Tina Alster (“Alster”) for malpractice in connection with laser surgery performed by Alster on Wild’s face. Alster prevailed at trial, and Wild sought a new trial alleging error in jury instructions and prejudice from discovery and evidentiary rulings. One basis for the alleged prejudice was the court’s decision not to allow expert examination of Alster’s computer to determine whether it contained dates indicating when photographs contained therein were taken. Read More

Cooney, et al. v. Beverly Enter., Inc., et al., No. CV 2003-1049-3 (Saline County Cir. Ct., Ark. June 15, 2005) (order imposing sanctions upon Beverly Defendants)

The Arkansas Daily Blog reported on June 25, 2005 that Beverly Enterprises, a nursing home chain, has recently been subject to unfavorable rulings in connection with class action litigation. A link to the entry can be found here. The litigation reportedly involves allegations of unsanitary food, unclean bathrooms, smelly premises, and substandard care. Read More

Zhuang v. Datacard Corp., 414 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2005)

Xuelin Zhuang (“Zhuang”) sued Datacard Corporation (“Datacard”) in connection with employment discrimination. Datacard prevailed by summary judgment, and Zhuang appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed with respect to claims of discrimination and retaliation, and also found that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Zhuang’s motion to strike an email for failure to disclose it during discovery. Read More

Nieshe v. Concrete School Dist., 2005 WL 1580043 (Wash.App. July 5, 2005) (unpublished)

Jennifer Nieshe (“Neishe”) sued the Concrete School District (“District”) under 42 U.S.C. ��1983 for denying her due process by excluding her from a high school graduation ceremony based on a failing grade which was later changed to a passing grade. The superior court sustained a jury verdict in favor of Neishe. The District appealed, and Neishe cross-appealed arguing that the superior court erred in not sanctioning the District for violating discovery rules by failing to produce a computer disk. Read More

People v. Jiang, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)

Weibin Jiang (“Jiang”), a native of China with limited English language skills, was convicted and sentenced to state prison for 19 years and 4 months in connection with sexual offenses against A., an acquaintance. The trial court improperly denied Jiang’s motion to suppress his statement to police (Miranda warnings were not adequately translated and conveyed), and his conviction was reversed. In addition, the trial court erred in finding that materials prepared by Jiang for Jiang’s attorneys and stored on his employer-issued laptop computer were not subject to the attorney-client privilege. Read More

J.C. Associates v. Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1570140 (D.D.C. July 1, 2005)

Plaintiff alleged that defendant breached the terms of an insurance policy by refusing coverage in connection with plaintiff’s use of a pesticide on a property managed by plaintiff. Defendant responded that the “absolute pollution exclusion” applies such that it need not provide coverage. Discovery disputes developed, including a dispute over how defendant must search and produce other claims files in response to a request seeking information related to interpretation of the exclusion. Read More