Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations

1
TLS Mgmt. and Mktg. Services v. Rodriguez-Toledo, No. 15-2121 (BJM), 2017 WL 115743 (D. P.R. March 27, 2017)
2
Coyne v. Los Alamos National Security, LLC et al., No. 15-0054 (D.N.M. Mar. 21, 2017)
3
Ensing v. Ensing, et al., No 12591 (Del. Ct. Chancery Mar. 6, 2017)
4
Estate of Shaw v. Marcus (S.D.N.Y., 2017)
5
Diesel Power Source et al. v. Crazy Carl’s Turbos et al., No. 14-826 (D. Utah Feb. 23, 2017)
6
Blasi v. United Debt Services (Souther District Ohio, Eastern Division, 2017)
7
Oppenheimer v. City of La Habra (Central District of California, Southern Division, 2017)
8
Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. (E.D. Va., 2017)
9
Morrison v. Veale, M.D., No. 3:14-cv-1020-TFM, 2017 WL 372980 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 25, 2017)
10
Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 5088 (RMB)(HBP), 2016 WL 616386 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016)

TLS Mgmt. and Mktg. Services v. Rodriguez-Toledo, No. 15-2121 (BJM), 2017 WL 115743 (D. P.R. March 27, 2017)

Key Insight: ESI “willfully discarded or deleted”

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of the electronic Communications Privacy Act against defendants accused of stealing plaintiff’s clients and confidential information.

Electronic Data Involved: defendant’s iPhone, laptop and external hard drive

Keywords: adverse-inference instruction, forensic examination of a flash drive.

View Case Opinion

Coyne v. Los Alamos National Security, LLC et al., No. 15-0054 (D.N.M. Mar. 21, 2017)

Key Insight: Plaintiff reset iPhone, shortly before sending to vendor for forensic examination. Previous sanctions had not proven to deter this activity and recommended dismissal of case.

Nature of Case: Wrongful Termination

Electronic Data Involved: iPhone Records

Keywords: spoliation; destruction; sanctions

View Case Opinion

Estate of Shaw v. Marcus (S.D.N.Y., 2017)

Key Insight: email

Nature of Case: Family Business dispute

Electronic Data Involved: email

Keywords: Pattern of delinquent conduct; Complete disr4egard for court orders; failure to preserve; Zubulake

View Case Opinion

Diesel Power Source et al. v. Crazy Carl’s Turbos et al., No. 14-826 (D. Utah Feb. 23, 2017)

Key Insight: Plaintiff requested Defendant run 72 “spelling variations” of 5 terms allowed by prior court order. Court denied and allowed 20, but did not apply sanctions yet.

Nature of Case: Libel/Slander

Electronic Data Involved: Various ESI

Keywords: search terms; sanctions; cooperation

View Case Opinion

Blasi v. United Debt Services (Souther District Ohio, Eastern Division, 2017)

Key Insight: Party that does not dispute it spoliated ESI should be sanctioned

Nature of Case: consumer protection class action

Electronic Data Involved: deleted electronic records

Keywords: spoliation sanctions, deleted electronic records

View Case Opinion

Oppenheimer v. City of La Habra (Central District of California, Southern Division, 2017)

Key Insight: Rule 37 does not directly address destruction of video footage.

Nature of Case: prisoner suicide

Electronic Data Involved: video footage, emails, text messages

Keywords: destruction video, spoliation video

View Case Opinion

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

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

Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 5088 (RMB)(HBP), 2016 WL 616386 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016)

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel a response to his second set of document requests (consisting of 168 pages and 1,027 individual requests), noting several procedural and ?substantive defects,? including that Plaintiff?s requests were ?grossly irrelevant? and sought ?numerous documents that ha[d] nothing to do with the claims or defenses? and disproportional to the case (citing Defendant?s prior production of approximately 1,000 pages of documents), even despite the ?strong federal policy against employment discrimination?; addressing defendant?s motion for sanctions, court concluded that ?Plaintiff?s Second Document Request was unquestionably prepared and served in bad faith and in a conscious effort to impose an unreasonable burden on defendants? and cited Plaintiff?s numerous document requests, violation of two prior discovery orders and other ?obstructive behavior? and granted a protective order relieving defendant of the obligation to respond and ordered that Plaintiff was prohibited from offering or using any document not already produced, that Plaintiff must submit to a medical exam (as was previously ordered) or suffer dismissal of his case, and that Plaintiff would be liable for the attorneys fees incurred by Defendants in addressing the motions resolved in this opinion

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (Title VII, Age Discrimination, ADA, etc.)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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