Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 26

Chen v. LW Restaurant, Inc., No. 10 CV 200 (ARR), 2011 WL 3420433 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including preclusion of evidence/witnesses, an adverse inference instruction (upon plaintiffs? request) and payment of attorney?s costs and fees for defendant?s discovery violations, including repeated failure to produce evidence despite court orders, and ?loss? of a flash drive and its contents under circumstances which supported a finding of gross negligence or intentional spoliation; court invited plaintiffs to seek sanctions against defense counsel, too, for counsel?s egregious violations of his duties, including failure to issue a litigation hold, failure to be candid regarding the loss of evidence, and failure to ensure compliance with client?s discovery obligations, among others

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (wages)

Electronic Data Involved: Flash drive containing original payroll records for purpose of analyzing metadata

Suntrust Mortg., Inc. v. AIG United Guaranty Corp., No. 3:09cv529, 2011 WL 1225989 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For fraud on the court (attributed to plaintiff as the result of employee?s alteration of emails) and for abuse of the litigation process (resulting from in-house counsel and management?s failure to adequately investigate the existence of other altered emails and subsequent reliance on one such altered email in the filing of their first complaint), court ordered plaintiff to pay attorneys? fees and costs associated with defendant?s sanctions motion but denied the request for additional sanctions, including dismissal, adverse jury instructions, and issue preclusion

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract

Electronic Data Involved: Altered emails

Britton v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 4:11cv32-RH/WCS, 2011 WL 3236189 (N.D. Fla. June 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant?s employee(s) were found to have allowed the loss of relevant video surveillance tape, despite repeated notification of its relevance and requests for preservation, and to have done so intentionally and in bad faith, court declined to enter default judgment but precluded defendant?s presentation of certain defenses and ordered payment of attorney?s costs and fees related to the motion for sanctions and payment of half of such costs and fees related to a prior motion in which defendant?s dishonesty regarding the existence of the at issue vide resulted in costs to the plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged wrongful detention of teens for shoplifting

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Papadoplos v. Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC, 21 A.3d 1216 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed sanction of dismissal of plaintiffs? claims for spoliation where plaintiff was found to have undertaken ?knowing and willful? spoliation of ?pertinent? evidence resulting in prejudice to the defendant by destroying relevant hard drives

Nature of Case: Legal Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Flagg v. City of Detroit, No. 05-74253, 2011 WL 4634249 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2011); Flagg v. City of Detroit, No. 05-74253, 2011 WL 4634245 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For the City of Detroit?s bad faith spoliation of emails, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions but imposed a permissive adverse inference; for the City?s and its attorneys? ?bad faith disregard of their discovery obligations and the orders of this Court? which led to the destruction of evidence (including failing to disseminate a legal hold notice and Corporation Counsel?s ?utter delinquen[ce] in his duty to see that his clients complied with Judge Rosen?s orders?), the court ordered the city and Corporation Counsel to split plaintiffs? reasonable fees and costs; in its analysis related to an adverse inference, the court adopted the analysis of Forest Labs. Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009), which held that an adverse inference may be appropriate in some cases involving the negligent destruction of evidence (as opposed to bad faith, which some courts have held is necessary)

Nature of Case: Minor son of murder victim alleged that defendants conducted lax investigation and deliberately ignored or actively concealed material evidence

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Int?l Med. Group, Inc. v. Walker, No. 1:08-cv-923-JMS-TAB, 2011 WL 1752101 (S.D. Ind. May 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where relevant evidence found on defendants? hard drive ?challenge[d]? defendants? prior assertions that they had not retained copies of certain communications and defendant Walker?s ?self characterization as a peripheral observer?, the court concluded that Plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of fraud and that defendants therefore waived their attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel regarding: ?preservation, destruction, or location of documents or discussion of discovery obligations?

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to defame and tortuously interfere with business relationships

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Io Group, Inc. v. GLBT, Ltd., No. C-10-1282 MMC (DMR), 2011 WL 4974337 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion for sanctions and ordered adverse inference for defendants? spoliation where defendants failed to suspend the automatic deletion function on their email which deleted both incoming and outgoing emails after three to four days and where defendants admitted to deleting relevant audio visual content from their server, court also ordered payment of attorney?s fees and costs for defendants? failure to adequately respond to the court?s order for particular information related to their preservation and collection efforts; court rejected assertions that UK Data Protection Act does not permit the retention of personal information and required deletion of emails where defendant offered no evidence that the deleted data contained personal information protected by statute and also rejected the position that the court lacked authority to order production pursuant to the Data Protection Act

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Surowiec v. Capital Title Agency, Inc., No. CV-09-2153-PHX-DGC, 2011 WL 1671925 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Highlighting that a party?s duty of preservation is owed to the court and not to a potential plaintiff, court found that defendant was grossly negligent in its failure to issue a litigation hold or take other efforts to ensure preservation of relevant evidence and ordered an adverse inference; court also found that defendant acted ?willfully in failing to timely and adequately respond to the document requests? where defendant?s search terms were not ?calculated to capture? relevant documents and where a court ordered (re)search resulted in production of thousands of documents only three days before the close of discovery and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct and for the reasonable attorney?s fees spent to challenge the misconduct, prepare for additional depositions, and bring the instant motion for sanctions; court?s opinion specifically declined to hold that a lack of written litigation hold was negligence per se

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. related to purchase of condominium

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Osborne LLC v. C.H. Robinson Co., No. 08 C 50165, 2011 WL 5076267 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant ?was late in responding to some of plaintiff?s discovery requests, and failed to respond to Plaintiff?s good faith attempts to open a dialogue about electronic discovery? and where there was evidence that defendant knew what plaintiff was seeking but ?was deliberatively evasive and caused unnecessary delay? (by failing to produce relevant records because plaintiff had not specifically asked for documents containing specific terms, for example) the court indicted that defendant?s actions were not in line with the Federal Rules, the Seventh Circuit?s Pilot Program principles, or the Sedona Principles and ordered payment of certain of plaintiff?s fees and costs; court noted Plaintiff?s contributions to the delays by ?aggressively pursuing motions to compel and for sanctions when there may have been opportunities for more amicable resolutions? and thus declined to impose cost or fees related to duplicative or repetitive motions

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 274 F.R.D. 442 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendants? discovery abuses, including spoliation or withholding of audio tapes of wiretapped conversations despite a court order to produce them; destruction of relevant hard drives and refusal to authorize release of copies of those drives from a third-party; and failure to produce other relevant evidence, court found that plaintiff had been prejudiced and ordered default sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fraudulent scheme to recover insurance reimbursements

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes, hard drives

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations