Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations

1
Bennett v. Martin, 2009 WL 4048111 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)
2
S.E.C. v. Leslie, 2009 WL 4724242 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2009)
3
Argus & Assoc. v. Prof?l Benefits Servs., 2009 WL 1297374 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2009)
4
Moore v. Napolitano, 2009 WL 2450280 (Aug. 7, 2009 D.D.C.)
5
Benedict College v. Nat?l Credit Systs., 2009 WL 3839473 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2009)
6
Gotlin v. Lederman, 2010 WL 2843380 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009)
7
Infor Global Solutions, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1421576 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2009)
8
Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)
9
Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 3064663 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2009)
10
1100 West, LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009)

Bennett v. Martin, 2009 WL 4048111 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to adequately respond to discovery in defiance of two court orders, trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of certain of defendants? hard drives to ensure that all responsive documents had been produced but erred in ?not providing adequate protections to safeguard the confidentiality? of defendants? information; case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the protocol described by the appellate court, i.e., the retention of an independent expert to retrieve potentially responsive files to be reviewed by the producing party before production to ensure protection of confidentiality and privilege

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

S.E.C. v. Leslie, 2009 WL 4724242 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced responsive documents after the close of discovery and explained that he believed the documents had been previously produced by his prior employer based on his misunderstanding that all documents saved to his personal computer were also saved on the employer?s network (and thus collected from that source), the court reasoned that ?a trial on the merits of the case outweighs and prejudice to the plaintiff?, that the plaintiff had had more than a month to complete the review of the newly produced documents, and that defendant had fulfilled his obligation to supplement discovery and denied defendant?s motion to exclude plaintiff?s use of the documents; court allowed defendant to depose plaintiff for an additional two hours

Electronic Data Involved: Late produced ESI

Argus & Assoc. v. Prof?l Benefits Servs., 2009 WL 1297374 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed its inability to timely respond to defendant?s discovery requests was caused by defendant?s failure to provide access to Medi-web website, court rejected claims that defendant had intentionally misled plaintiff but reasoned that defendant?s behavior ?was not exemplary? and that the parties should have addressed the website when developing their discovery plan; court?s order upheld prior evidentiary sanction for late productions of evidence related to claims of breach of duty, but excepted evidence not known to plaintiffs until after accessing Medi-web

Nature of Case: Breach of statutory and contractual duties

Electronic Data Involved: Website

Moore v. Napolitano, 2009 WL 2450280 (Aug. 7, 2009 D.D.C.)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to magistrate judge?s order ?to do what the [Rules] already require in no uncertain terms, and that is to search for the responsive documents and produce them? (where defendant had unilaterally decided not to look for ESI), court rejected defendant?s objections, including her argument of undue burden, where plaintiffs? use of broad language did not automatically render them overbroad and where declarations in support of the alleged burden were ?largely conclusory?, where magistrate?s order (and Federal Rules) did not require futile searching where it was clear no documents would be found (after good faith inquiry), and where defendant offered only speculation that her search would result in ?needless duplication?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Benedict College v. Nat?l Credit Systs., 2009 WL 3839473 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s claims that discovery was produced as maintained in the usual course of business where documents were printed, copied, bates labeled and then converted to .pdf format and defendant?s objections that plaintiff?s requests were overly broad and burdensome, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all responsive documents, organized and labeled according to each request, and to produce to plaintiff and the court a ?faithful electronic copy? of its relevant database with metadata intact to allow for inspection if the need arose; doubting the sufficiency of defendant?s production of email, court ordered company?s president to order a diligent search for responsive documents and to certify by affidavit (using language provided by the court) that such a search was conducted and to provide an explanation for any missing or unfound documents

Nature of Case: Beach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Gotlin v. Lederman, 2010 WL 2843380 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009)

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s delayed production of untranslated medical records after the close of discovery, court precluded use of the late-disclosed records upon reasoning that the late disclosure was not substantially justified and resulted in prejudice to the defendants and upon reasoning that to allow such disclosure would result in continued delay of the proceedings in light of likely need to re-open expert disclosure, among other things

Electronic Data Involved: Late produced CD containing untranslated medical records

Infor Global Solutions, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1421576 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed electronic documents could not be located due to changes in the computer system upon merging and because of a lack of back up tapes for the relevant time period, court found that plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for its inability to produce, including explaining what happened to the files that previously existed, stated that plaintiff ?needs to show it has conducted a diligent search for responsive documents? and ordered plaintiffs to conduct further searches for responsive documents

Nature of Case: Recovery of legal expenses

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, 2009 WL 2568431 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009)

Key Insight: Court found emails ?not reasonably accessible? in light of representations of undue burden, including the need for vendor assistance to accomplish the necessary searching, and, upon shifting the burden to defendant to show ?good cause? for the additional emails sought, ordered some specific searching using specific terms and for the parties to confer to identify additional custodians

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 3064663 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2009)

Key Insight: Adopting magistrate?s recommendation, district court judge denied defendant?s motion for sanctions based upon plaintiff?s alleged discovery misconduct, including spoliation and delay, where defendant ?failed to establish that its defenses have been materially prejudiced? and where plaintiff ?refuted to [magistrate?s] satisfaction the contention of defense counsel that they engaged in spoliation of material?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, statutory violations, tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

1100 West, LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009)

Key Insight: Court ordered terminating sanctions against defendant and for defendant and its defense firm to pay plaintiff?s attorney?s fees where client made repeated misrepresentations regarding the use of certain chemicals at issue and failed to disclose relevant evidence about the same and where counsel failed to provide adequate guidance regarding the need to locate and produce responsive materials and allowed defendant to make repeated misrepresentations despite significant evidence that those representations were untrue

Nature of Case: Claims of property contamination

 

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.