Martin v. Stoops Buick, Inc. (S.D. Ind., 2016)
Key Insight: inadvertent destruction of computer after litigation hold not sanctioned
Nature of Case: wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: work computer
Keywords: no bad faith
State of Louisiana v. Demontre Smith (Louisiana, 2016)
Key Insight: social media that was not authenticated was admitted at trial
Nature of Case: criminal, aggravated assault
Electronic Data Involved: inauthenticated social media evidence
Keywords: social media, in-authenticated, admissible
Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Associates, Inc. (District Court of Kansas, 2016)
Key Insight: whether stating that “ESI request is not relevant or proportional” is not sufficient.
Nature of Case: breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: emails
Keywords: informal internal emails
Identified State Rule(s): D. Kan. 37(2)
First Niagara Risk Management v. Folino (United States District Court, Eastern District Pennsylvania., 2016)
Key Insight: Proportionality, Fraud
Nature of Case: Non-compete enforcement
Electronic Data Involved: scope of discovery
Keywords: Sedona principles
Finding Application of Recently-Amended Rule 37(e) “Neither Unjust Nor Impractical,” Court Imposes Adverse Inference
Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. Carmicle, Nos. 0:14-CV-60629, 0:14-CV-61415, 2016 WL 815827 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2016)
In this case, the court heard argument regarding Defendant’s alleged spoliation in October, 2015—before amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect—and deferred ruling on the motion until the end of trial. The amendments became effective “shortly after trial concluded.” Upon determining that “applying the new version of Rule 37(e) would be neither unjust nor impractical,” the court found that Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the information at-issue, despite a duty to do so; that the lost information could not be restored or replaced through additional discovery; and that Defendant acted with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of the information’s use in the litigation. Accordingly, the court presumed that the lost information was unfavorable to the defendant. The court also noted that the sanction would be appropriate under prior standards, specifically pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to sanction a party’s bad faith litigation conduct.
Vay v. Huston (WDPa, 2016)
Key Insight: Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to produce documents and requests sanctions, including dismissal.
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI and scanned PDF documents and other documents.
Keywords: Proportionality, motion to compel (not filed)
Coale v. Metro-North Railroad Co., No. 08-cv-01307 (D.Conn. Apr. 11, 2016).
Key Insight: Court concluded defendant had duty to preserve oily substance and was negligent in doing so. Permissive adverse inference instruction granted.
Nature of Case: personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: oily substance plaintiff slipped on
Keywords: adverse inference;
Update: CAT3 Dismissed, Along with Motion for Sanctions
CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 5511 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2016)
On April 4, the parties in this case stipulated to dismissal, with prejudice, of all remaining claims in the case and Defendants have withdrawn their motion for sanctions and acknowledged that, in light of “various evidence” provided by Plaintiffs, “neither Plaintiffs nor any of their owners or agents engaged in any discovery misconduct or wrongdoing . . . .”
A copy of the Joint Stipulation is available here.
Click here to read the original case summary addressing the application of recently-amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
Spring v. Board of Trustees of Cape Fear Community College (S.D. Ind., 2016)
Key Insight: not ordered to reproduce production of documents in native format (with metadata) but only categories specifically requested by plaintiff
Nature of Case: wrongful termination – contract
Electronic Data Involved: email
Keywords: native format
UPCOMING EVENT: RULES AMENDMENTS ROADSHOW
Hello “Proportionality,” Goodbye “Reasonably Calculated”: Reinventing Case Management and Discovery Under the 2015 Civil Rules Amendments
Presented by: the ABA Section of Litigation & Duke Law
Join us in Seattle on April 29, 2016
The most significant changes to discovery and case management practices in more than a decade, the 2015 Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, 34 and 37, took effect on December 1, 2015. The American Bar Association Section of Litigation and the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies are jointly presenting this unprecedented, 18-city series of dialogues, led by national thought leaders and including local judges, magistrates, and top practitioners in each city. The goal: to further the understanding of the case-management techniques that will help courts and litigants realize the Amendments’ full potential to make discovery more targeted, less expensive, and more effective in achieving justice.
Based on local requests, this popular program has been expanded from the original 13-city tour to 18. Each three-hour program features leaders from the Rules amendment process, who walk the audience through the Amendments and their implications for civil litigation. Spirited panel discussions among local District Court Judges, Magistrate Judges, and leading litigators then explore the Amendments’ practical discovery implications and best practices for case management under the amended Rules. Each program’s attendees discuss application of the new rules to a variety of hypothetical cases and leave with a toolbox of techniques for putting the Amendments into practice.