Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. (E.D. Va., 2017)
2
Hibbett Patient Care, LLC v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., No. CA 16-00231-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017).
3
Martinz v. Salazar (District of New Mexico, 2017)
4
Morrison v. Veale, M.D., No. 3:14-cv-1020-TFM, 2017 WL 372980 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 25, 2017)
5
ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan v. Connecticut General, 3:15-cv-02965-WHA (N.D. Cal., 2017)
6
Rife v. Okla. Dept. of Public Safety (10th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2017)
7
Jenkins v. Woody, 2017 WL 362475, 3:15cv355 (E.D. Va, 2017)
8
Citing Misconduct “As Deep as it is Wide,” Court Imposes Sanctions on Defendants and Counsel
9
Rockman Company v. Nong Shim Company (Northern District California, 2017)
10
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC (W.D. Ark., 2017)

Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. (E.D. Va., 2017)

Key Insight: inadequate search and production, misrepresentation, failure to supplement, follow-up, failure to disclose

Nature of Case: patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: email, board meeting minutes, investor presentations

Keywords: monetary sanctions, needless burden, late disclosures, post-settlement order, misrepresentation, motion to show cause

View Case Opinion

Hibbett Patient Care, LLC v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., No. CA 16-00231-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2017).

Key Insight: Plaintiff requested information related to outside counsel’s evaluation of claims. Court granted, but limited original request.

Nature of Case: Insurance breach of contract and bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Various documents related to claims investigations; primarily related to outside counsel evaluations.

Keywords: scope; outside counsel; evaluation of claim

View Case Opinion

Martinz v. Salazar (District of New Mexico, 2017)

Key Insight: Even with a litigation hold, if a party would have made no efforts to obtain a serial number, bad faith is not found. Sloppy paperwork may be considered gross negligence in a totality of the circumstances. Rule 37(e) was not used.

Nature of Case: Excessive police force

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data (Taser usage records)

Keywords: taser, cartridge, serial number, spoliation

Morrison v. Veale, M.D., No. 3:14-cv-1020-TFM, 2017 WL 372980 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 25, 2017)

Key Insight: Spoliation of evidence via a mobile device. Case filed prior to new Rule 37(e) enactment, so, rule does not apply.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act violation

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail account records

Keywords: “old” bad faith analysis, misdirection and deception, 2-step verification.

View Case Opinion

ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan v. Connecticut General, 3:15-cv-02965-WHA (N.D. Cal., 2017)

Key Insight: Service provider failed to preserve ESI

Nature of Case: ERISA action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI contained on servers

Keywords: failure to preserve, servers, service provider, inherent power authority

View Case Opinion

Rife v. Okla. Dept. of Public Safety (10th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2017)

Key Insight: Without using FRCP 37(e), bad faith is still an importance factor for spoliation

Nature of Case: Failure to provide medical care (deliberate indifference)

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Keywords: deliberate indifference, spoliation sanctions

View Case Opinion

Jenkins v. Woody, 2017 WL 362475, 3:15cv355 (E.D. Va, 2017)

Key Insight: defendants took no steps to save a copy of the footage, and it was overwritten after 30 days elapsed.

Nature of Case: Death by negligence and deliberate indifference

Electronic Data Involved: surveillance camera footage

Keywords: surveillance camera footage, defendant sheriff, anticipation of litigation

View Case Opinion

Citing Misconduct “As Deep as it is Wide,” Court Imposes Sanctions on Defendants and Counsel

Arrowhead Capital Fin., Ltd. v. Seven Arts Entm’t, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 6512 (KPF), 2016 WL 4991623 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2016)

For Defendants’ egregious discovery conduct, including obstructing depositions and failing to preserve and produce relevant documents, among other things, the Court imposed sanctions, including precluding them from litigating the issue of personal jurisdiction; imposing a “spoliation instruction, as appropriate, on any claims that are ultimately submitted to the jury”; ordering payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys fees related to the misconduct; and ordering the retention of a second outside counsel to review their files for additional discoverable materials and to represent them in future discovery-related proceedings.  Defendants’ manager and sometimes CEO was also found in contempt for his behavior throughout discovery, including attempting to minimize his own responsibility for the discovery deficiencies by claiming limited involvement and blaming others.  Finally, for acting in bad faith in a manner that improperly lengthened the proceedings and for making objections in bad faith, the Court also imposed “modest” sanctions against defense counsel.

Read More

Rockman Company v. Nong Shim Company (Northern District California, 2017)

Key Insight: Duty of preservation is not enforceable for foreign company investigated by foreign government with no lawsuits filed in USA

Nature of Case: antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: deleted electronic records

Keywords: duty of preservation foreign, foreign government investigation preserve

View Case Opinion

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC (W.D. Ark., 2017)

Key Insight: failure to review backup tapes, attorney’s fees

Nature of Case: contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: email, backup tapes

Keywords: destruction of laptop, key employee, prejudice, duty to preserve, adverse inference, retention policy

View Case Opinion

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