Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Rogers, 2006 WL 1207962 (E.D. La. May 3, 2006)

The court’s order enjoined the defendants and their employees or agents from soliciting any current employee of the plaintiff for employment. It also required the defendants to return to the plaintiff, through counsel, “any tangible property (including all copies, recordings and other reproductions), if any at all, in either of their possession owned or provided by Cardinal, which tangible property was not returned to Cardinal at the conclusion of their employment with Cardinal.” The property to be returned included: Read More

Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 1174040 (D. Kan. May 1, 2006)

In this (uncertified) consumer class action, the court considered plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of documents. Defendant contended that plaintiffs’ production requests exceeded the scope of class certification discovery, and were vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. For example, defendant asserted that approximately 31 million vehicles were serviced annually at company-owned and franchised Jiffy Lube stores, and that plaintiffs’ request for all vehicle service records going back to January 1, 1997 was unduly burdensome and overly broad. Plaintiffs responded that defendant failed to carry its burden of showing “undue burden” and that the requested documents could be produced in electronic format at a minimal cost. Read More

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266 (3rd Cir. 2006)

This opinion relates to an ongoing grand jury investigation of suspected federal criminal activity; because of the secrecy of the proceeding, the court’s opinion lacks specific details.

The grand jury began investigating the financial arrangements and business dealings of an individual (the “Primary Target”), whose business dealings were carried out by a particular organization (the “Organization”). The grand jury investigation led to inquiry of Jane Doe, the Executive Director of the Organization, who had, and has, intimate knowledge of and access to the papers and other material of both the Primary Target and the Organization. “It appears that Jane Doe is also a target of the grand jury investigation. If she was not at the outset, she certainly has become a target in light of the events with which we are concerned. The Organization, through its counsel (“Attorney”), has entered into a joint-defense agreement with Jane Doe and her counsel in response to the investigation.” Read More

Fischer v. UPS, 2006 WL 1046973 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 19, 2006)

In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff had requested the production of certain salary information. Defendant had produced a responsive email that referenced an attachment, but the attachment was not produced. Defendant represented that it was unable to locate the attachment. Plaintiff was unwilling to simply accept defendant’s claim that the attachment could not be located, and asked to depose someone familiar with defendant’s retrieval efforts. Ruling on plaintiff’s discovery motion, the magistrate struck a compromise, and ordered defendant’s counsel to arrange an informal telephone conference with an employee of defendant who was familiar with defendant’s efforts to locate the attachment. Read More

Vela v. Wagner & Brown, Ltd., 203 S.W.3d 37 (Tex. App. 2006)

In this oil and gas drainage case, Roberto Vela, and the other royalty interest owners and intervenors (collectively, the “Royalty Owners”), appealed from the trial court’s take-nothing judgment. On cross-appeal, Wagner & Brown challenged the trial court’s pre-trial order assessing $75,000 in sanctions against it. The appellate court affirmed the order imposing sanctions and the judgment of the trial court. Read More

Floeter v. City of Orlando, 2006 WL 1000306 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2006)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that he was the victim of sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation while working as a detective with the Orlando Police Department (OPD). He served a request for production of documents and a request to inspect computer hard drives at OPD, which he styled as a request for entry upon land. When OPD objected to some of the requests, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Read More

Miller v. IBM, 2006 WL 995160 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2006)

In this case involving breach of contract and fraud claims, IBM moved to preclude plaintiff Ralph Miller from offering evidence on any of the matters for which he had failed to comply with the court’s previous discovery orders. The court granted in part and denied in part IBM’s motion for sanctions, and warned that further noncompliance could result in terminating sanctions. Several of the matters on which the court granted relief related to electronic discovery. Read More