United States v. Magnesium Corp. of Am., 2006 WL 2350155, (D. Utah Aug. 11, 2006)

In this decision, the court considered the government’s motion for an order requiring certain defendants "to maintain documents in their possession that are relevant to this case throughout all phases of the litigation." In making the request, the government indicated that it has no reason to believe that the defendants were destroying documents, but also noted that Phase III of the litigation could occur as late as 2009. Since the government did not know whether the defendants had a policy that limits the time that documents are retained, it wanted to ensure that relevant documents were not inadvertently destroyed as part of the defendants’ document retention policy. Read More

Lawrence E. Jaffee Pension Plan v. Household Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 1898151 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2006)

In this securities fraud class action, plaintiffs sought to compel production of documents relating to Household’s litigation database. During the class period, Household’s Office of the General Counsel collected and maintained information regarding all litigation that was being prosecuted, defended, or supervised by attorneys in that department. The purpose of the database was to assist Household’s counsel in understanding, managing and providing legal advice to management about each lawsuit. According to Household, attorneys or staff under their direction added comments to the database reflecting the attorneys’ mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and strategies. Household further claimed that it implemented strict controls to protect the confidentiality of these records, and that the database has never been disclosed to Household’s outside auditors or any other third party.

Read More

E.E.O.C. v. Lexus Serramonte, 2006 WL 2329510 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2006)

In this decision, the court ruled upon plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to respond to the following:

(1) Interrogatory No. 9 “IDENTIFY each PERSON employed by YOU at YOUR Lexus of Serramonte Facility during the REQUESTED TIME PERIOD providing the following information for each: name, gender, hire date, last date employed if currently laid off, residence addresses, telephone numbers, social security number, and employment position.”; (2) Request No. 17 “An electronic database file, in Quattro Pro readable format, IDENTIFYING YOUR CURRENT employees in the Serramonte Facility including each employees’ name, gender, hire date, last date employed if currently laid off, residence addresses, telephone numbers, social security number, and employment position.”; and (3) Request No. 18 “An electronic database file, in Quattro Pro readable format, IDENTIFYING all female employees that worked with or under the supervision of Roderick V. Helaire, Francis Chang, Yan Epshtein and Bob Fraley from 2000 to the present, including each employee’s name, hire date, last date employed if currently laid off, residence addresses, telephone numbers, social security number, and employment position.”

Read More

Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006)

In a follow up to an earlier decision granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006), the court evaluated plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the motion. Plaintiff sought $60,216 in fees and costs, and the SRC Defendants argued that plaintiff was to a maximum amount of only $17,658. The court found plaintiff had included time for reviewing 172 boxes of documents produced late by the SRC Defendants, and that this time was improper since plaintiff’s counsel would have had to review these documents anyway. Since the firm’s use of block billing made it impossible to identify the work specifically related to the motion, and separate it from unrelated work, the court reduced the requested total of $60,215.76 by 25 percent. Accordingly, the court granted Phoenix’s request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion for sanctions in the sum of $45,161.82, to be paid equally by the SRC Defendants and their law firm, Mound Cotton. The court further ruled that the SRC Defendants’ share “may not be borne by their insurance carriers.” Apparently, Mound Cotton was free to seek reimbursement from its insurance carrier if there was coverage for such.

Petersen v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2006 WL 2054365 (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2006)

In this opinion, the magistrate judge overruled defendant’s objections to certain discovery requests, reminding the parties: “Remember, we are talking discovery, not admissibility at trial.” One of the disputed requests for production sought defendant’s document retention policy:
Read More