Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 22

Master Hand Contractors, Inc. v. Convent of the Sacred Heart of Chicago, No. 1-12-3788, 2013 WL 5940641 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in dismissing mechanics lien case with prejudice as sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with its discovery obligations for approximately 18 months and its violations of seven orders of the court, including three expressly final deadlines to produce electronic discovery materials, as the trial court applied progressive discipline to coerce compliance and gave plaintiff ample opportunities to escape possible discovery sanctions; appellate court criticized plaintiff?s approach to the ESI request, ?under which the company owner — who called himself a ?computer idiot? in open court — self-selected emails relating to the Sacred Heart project instead of using a search tool to find them, and printed them out one at a time, all without supervision of counsel.?

Nature of Case: School building construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email

Moore v. Citgo Refining & Chemicals Co., 735 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion in dismissal of 17 plaintiffs who violated two court orders to preserve where willfulness was inferred from their disregard of the courts orders, where the failure to seek clarification weighed against any claimed confusion, where the evidence lost was unique and where no lesser sanction would have sufficed (plaintiffs were warned of the possibility of dismissal before it was imposed); no abuse of discretion for dismissal of four additional plaintiffs for failure to preserve emails despite an explicit court order

Nature of Case: FLSA (employment)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, handwritten notes

Valentini v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 1355(JMF), 2013 WL 4407065 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to dismiss complaint or grant adverse inference instruction as sanction for plaintiffs’ blatant disregard of the discovery process as there was no evidence of willfulness or maliciousness, and instead awarded all attorneys’ fees and costs that defendants incurred as a result of plaintiffs’ dilatory conduct; court further ordered parties to brief issue of whether more severe sanctions should be imposed against plaintiff entity that had failed to produce a single document from its files

Nature of Case: Fraud and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sung v. Mission Valley Renewable Energy, LLC, No. CV-11-5163-RMP, 2013 WL 4523561 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants received plaintiff?s production of approximately 3,600 electronic documents less than two weeks before trial was to begin, and defendants were only able to obtain the documents after they arranged for an independent electronic discovery review in response to plaintiff?s prior discovery abuses, court found that the circumstances of case were extraordinary, that plaintiff acted willfully and in bad faith in violating FRCP 26, 37 and the court?s scheduling order, and that analysis of the five relevant factors warranted dismissal of plaintiff?s claims against each defendant with prejudice

Nature of Case: Washington State Securities Act claims, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: 3,600 electronic documents which, if printed out, would total more than 10,000 pages

In re Heinz, 501 B.R. 746 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although court found that evidence compelled conclusion that debtor?s spoliation of electronic evidence, failure to preserve both ESI as well backup paper documentation, and failure to produce thumb drive was willful and intentional given the timing during imminent or ongoing litigation, court declined to impose a specific sanction against the debtor such as a default judgment and instead drew an adverse inference against debtor to the extent it impacted the debtor?s overall credibility; court ultimately found that plaintiffs? claim against the debtor for $39,296, stemming from judgment obtained by plaintiffs against debtor for breach of contract, was not dischargeable

Nature of Case: Complaint to determine dischargeability

Electronic Data Involved: Thumb drive containing financial information from 2009 through 2011

IBM Corp. v. ACS Human Servs., LLC, 999 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded third party some, but not all, of its discovery costs under court rule where court awarded all costs of non-party?s e-discovery vendor ($355,329) and one-half of non-party?s costs for dedicated document review team ($354,070), basing the 50% reduction on non-party?s ?largely unexplained? delay in producing documents and principles of general equity; nor did trial court abuse its discretion when it awarded IBM $425,179 in sanctions against same third party representing some, but not all, attorneys? fees and other costs IBM incurred as a result of non-party?s failure to comply with discovery orders, as court had authority under court rules and its inherent power to issue sanctions against non-parties, non-party?s resistance to or failure to comply with discovery orders was not substantially justified and sanctions were not otherwise unjust, and non-party?s conduct was sanctionable as IBM filed multiple motions to compel, trial court found that non-party?s opposition was not reasonable, and trial court intervened numerous times in the discovery process to secure non-party?s compliance

Nature of Case: IBM and the State of Indiana filed lawsuits against one another related to the State’s Family and Social Services Administration modernization initiatives

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Thompson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:09-CV-905 JCM (NJK), 2013 WL 164245 (D. Nev. Jan. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: District court adopted in its entirety the recommendation of the magistrate judge that Plaintiff?s amended complaint be dismissed and that her answer to defendants? counterclaims be stricken as a sanction for willful and bad faith spoliation where Plaintiff gave her relevant computers to her brother who then took them to Indonesia where he lived and where this spoliation resulted in severe prejudice to defendants; the opinion also upheld a prior order of the magistrate imposing sanctions in the form of findings detrimental to the plaintiff for ?ongoing and repetitive violations of discovery obligations?; as to both the recommendation adopted and the order upheld, the court granted defendant?s request for attorneys fees

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of restrictive covenant with prior employer

Electronic Data Involved: Two computers

Braun v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. B234212, 2013 WL 520030 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to substantiate his privacy objections and provided the court with no information to weigh against defendant?s stated need for discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the production of plaintiff?s home computer, which contained relevant photographic evidence; trial court did abuse its discretion when it ordered terminating sanctions for plaintiff?s intentional deletion of allegedly private information before producing his computer for inspection where Toyota offered only speculation as justification for such a serious sanction (e.g., ??we will never know? what was destroyed?) and where plaintiff did produce more than 13,000 photographs for inspection; case was remanded for consideration of serious sanctions short of terminating plaintiff?s case

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Selected contents of home computer, photographs

W. Penn. Elec. Employees Pension Fund v. Alter, No. 2:09-cv-04730-CMR, 2013 WL 4803564 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2013), approved and adopted in substantial part, 2013 WL 4799061 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In this Report and Amended Recommended Order, Special Discovery Master agreed with plaintiffs that they should have the opportunity to confirm, though inspection by neutral e-discovery vendor already retained by parties, defense counsel?s representations as to contents of individual defendant?s belatedly-disclosed hard drive, because without the requested examination, there was no way to know if, in fact, hard drive contents were duplicative of data already produced by another party as the individual defendant claimed; Special Master found request was not unreasonable given the centrality of the defendant in events giving rise to the lawsuit, the unsubstantiated nature of defense counsel?s claim that the data was duplicative, that the defendant had provided only limited discovery to plaintiffs, that the defendant, through his counsel, had previously denied possession of any responsive data when the hard drive had been in his home and responsive documents were on his personal computer, much time and money had been expended in the effort to obtain the documents from other sources, and plaintiffs should not be expected to accept without question the claim that the defendant ?simply forgot? he had received company documents prior to his departure; district court subsequently adopted recommendation but modified deadlines and division of costs

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Material on hard drive belatedly disclosed by individual defendant

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 2072866 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendants indicated that a relevant hard drive had crashed and been disposed of but that some relevant information had been recovered and where plaintiff was unable to establish that defendants acted in bad faith, court found defendants were grossly negligent in their failure to preserve the relevant hard drive which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff and ordered a ?spoliation charge? allowing but not requiring the jury to determine whether the spoliation warranted an adverse inference; opinion includes comprehensive discussion of relevant law and standards surrounding spoliation

Nature of Case: Racketeering and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations