Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 27

Ashton v. Knight Transp., Inc., No. 3:09-CV-0759-B, 2011 WL 734282 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, in a case arising from a fatal accident, the court determined that defendants? failure to preserve the tires of the involved truck and Qualcomm messages between the driver and the truck company was in bad faith and where that failure resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the court ordered that defendants? pleadings and defenses to liability be struck and, ?because defendants? misconduct led to the late discovery of a potential claim for punitive damages,? granted plaintiff leave to file an amended her complaint to add such a claim

Nature of Case: Hit and run

Electronic Data Involved: Qualcomm messages (“email type messages”)

Kosher Sports Inc. v. Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, No. 10-CV-2618 (JBW), 2011 WL 3471508 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff and counsel failed to disclose the existence of relevant audio recordings (of secretly recorded conversations) and attempted to conceal their existence (including by false certifications pursuant to Rule 26(g)), but where defendant was allowed to cure the prejudice through additional discovery, court ordered plaintiff and counsel to bear joint responsibility for payment of defendant?s expenses related to the delay and concealment; for destruction of relevant audio recordings with a ?sufficiently culpable? state of mind, court imposed an adverse inference instruction

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

ANZ Advanced Techs., LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, 2011 WL 814463 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs admitted to fabricating evidence and failed to comply with court orders to produce certain hard drives and other data storage and instead argued, among other things, that the hard drives etc. were in possession of an unrelated foreign corporation (ANZ International) and that ANZ USA was not involved in the discovery violations (including the fabrication of evidence), the court rejected such arguments upon establishing the connection between ANZ Int. and ANZ USA and ordered that plaintiffs? claims be dismissed

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Fabricated evidence, hard drives, other storage devices

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

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations