Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations

1
Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010)
2
VFI Assoc., LLC v. Lobo Mach. Corp., 2010 WL 4716215 (W.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2010)
3
Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd., 2010 WL 4337388 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2010)
4
In re Subpoenas, 692 F.Supp.2d 602 (W.D.Va. 2010)
5
Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 269 F.R.D. 186 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)
6
In re Venom. Inc., 2010 WL 892203 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010)
7
Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 235 P.3d 265 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)
8
Sofaer Global Hedge Fund v. Brightpoint, Inc, 2010 WL 4701419 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2010)
9
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Commc?ns Integrated Sys., L.P., 2010 WL 1891779 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2010)
10
Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)

Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010)

Key Insight: District court upheld sanction precluding defendant from presenting evidence of non-discriminatory reasons for non-promotion upon a prima facie showing of disparate treatment where defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search for responsive paper documents, despite a court order to do so, including providing ?ambiguous and deficient? search instructions to employees; failing to follow up when employees failed to uncover responsive information; and failing to credibly explain defendant?s search efforts, and where the Magistrate Judge properly concluded the sanction was proportional to the offense(s)

Nature of Case: Putative class action for discriminatory non-promotion

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy

VFI Assoc., LLC v. Lobo Mach. Corp., 2010 WL 4716215 (W.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2010)

Key Insight: For defendant?s knowing refusal to produce responsive data and bad faith alteration of data in an effort to hide relevant evidence, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from offering any “defense, evidence, or argument” as to several disputed issues and indicated it willingness to ?take under advisement? additional sanctions, including monetary sanctions, a finding of contempt of court, and a possible adverse inference instruction [on Nov. 22, 2010, a second opinion was issued, identical to the first except that the footnote regarding the court’s consideration of future sanctions discussed only an adverse inference instruction and did not include mention of a finding of contempt or monetary sanctions, 2010 WL 4868110]

Nature of Case: Allegations that business manager accepted kickbacks from equipment supplier

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd., 2010 WL 4337388 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to avoid searching and producing emails and related documents maintained by defendants? CEO and CTO and argued that they had already produced 5.5 million pages and that the information sought was cumulative and therefore imposed an undue burden, the court noted defendants admission that they had not searched or reviewed the materials of the relevant executives and found that plaintiff had shown the likelihood that such a search could lead to the discovery of relevant evidence and ordered the executives? materials to be searched and if responsive, produced

Electronic Data Involved: Executives’ ESI

In re Subpoenas, 692 F.Supp.2d 602 (W.D.Va. 2010)

Key Insight: Where recipient of government subpoenas refused to comply on grounds of unreasonableness and burden, court approved government?s offer to reduce number of custodians from 13 to 3 (out of a workforce of approximately 72,000) and ordered recipient to produce live emails and snapshot of emails from backup tapes for each of the years between 2002 and 2008 which, the court noted, had been preserved for other litigation

Nature of Case: Government investigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, snapshot of email from backup tapes

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 269 F.R.D. 186 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)

Key Insight: For ?defendant?s recalcitrance in meeting its discovery obligations?, namely refusing to produce certain discovery on the basis of foreign secrecy laws (a justification previously rejected by the court), the court imposed severe sanctions, including adverse inference instructions and an order precluding the presentation of certain evidence

Nature of Case: Knowingly and purposefully aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorist organizations

Electronic Data Involved: Foreign banking information

In re Venom. Inc., 2010 WL 892203 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010)

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff primarily responsible for breakdown of discovery for failing to produce requested ESI or to provide satisfactory explanation of the problems precluding production but declined to order exclusion of all evidence supporting ?diminution in value? claim where plaintiff produced substantial financial information and produced the requested ESI in hard copy, where plaintiffs violated no court order, where the failure to produce was temporally limited to two ?short periods of time?, and where plaintiffs apparent ability to produce the requested ESI would prevent any prejudice; court gave defendant option of receiving ESI on ?searchable CD? or receiving the computer on which the ESI was stored for expert examination

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Financial data in electronic format

Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 235 P.3d 265 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: Where the trial court concluded that defendant committed discovery violations in bad faith, including failing to timely produce responsive information, withholding responsive information even after a court order to produce, failing to provide an explanation for the failure to produce certain responsive information, producing certain documents only after being presented with evidence of their existence by plaintiff, and purging responsive documents from relevant files during the pendency of litigation, and where a lesser sanctions were properly considered, appellate court found ?reasonable grounds supporting the court?s decision? and affirmed the sanction of default judgment

Nature of Case: Violation of civil rights, selective enforcement of the law, failure to supervise, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard copy

Sofaer Global Hedge Fund v. Brightpoint, Inc, 2010 WL 4701419 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2010)

Key Insight: Addressing several discovery issues, court ordered plaintiff to undertake search of 13 custodians, despite objection that only one custodian was likely to maintain relevant records, where the paucity of documents produced from plaintiff?s championed custodian indicated the need for additional searching but, as to former employees records, etc. which plaintiff alleged were unavailable because the computers were wiped for use by other employees, court reasoned that ?a party obviously cannot produce documents that do not exist? and declined to compel their production; court denied defendants? request for dismissal but, because plaintiff?s opposition on many issues was ?substantially unjustified? granted the fees related to pursuing those requests

Nature of Case: Claims arising from loan made by plaintiff based on false representations by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Commc?ns Integrated Sys., L.P., 2010 WL 1891779 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2010)

Key Insight: Where, prior to entry of judgment, defendant moved for sanctions of dismissal or a new trial due to plaintiff?s failure to produce highly relevant internal emails during discovery, and where the factors for a new trial were met, court declined to order dismissal but ordered a new trial and thus set aside the $37.3 million verdict in favor of plaintiff

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: On appeal from the trial court?s order of dismissal, where the evidence indicated that plaintiff repeatedly utilized scrubbing software to delete data subject to preservation and which the court had ordered the plaintiff to produce and likely discarded other relevant external drives, the appellate court considered the six factors contemplated by the trial court when determining the proper sanction, namely, ?surprise, prejudice, the type of evidence at issue, diligence, timeliness of objection, and good faith? and affirmed the sanction upon finding ?absolutely no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion?

Nature of Case: Defamation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drives, external drives

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