Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 37

Adele S.R.L. v. Filene?s Basement, Inc., 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that defendants? first, second, and third productions were ?patently inadequate? and that ?representations by defendants and their attorneys as to the completeness of production were false,? court concluded plaintiffs had incurred some expense as a result of defendants? discovery behavior and that ?the required expenditure of funds to pursue discovery is prejudice enough to justify cost-shifting?; addressing plaintiffs? specific request to shift costs related to the search of back-up tapes resisted by defendants, court declined to shift costs where plaintiffs had not proposed an electronic discovery plan at the outset of litigation and where plaintiffs failed to meaningfully address Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) in their briefing

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database information, back up tapes

Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2009 WL 2252151 (D. Md. July 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs presented evidence of defendants? discovery violations, including defendants? failure to produce all relevant evidence in its possession and ?using computers to generate records for some plaintiffs ?in a piecemeal fashion??, among other things, court granted plaintiffs motion to compel and also scheduled show cause hearing for defendants to show why the court should not order as a sanction ?that Plaintiffs be permitted, at the expense of [the defendants] and their counsel, to have access to a mirror image, forensic copy of the electronically stored information of [the defendants] in order to search for documents responsive to their production requests?

Nature of Case: Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Beyer v. Medico Ins. Group, 2009 WL 3817211 (D.S.D. Nov. 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant claimed responding to discovery would require searching 200,000 claim files but where court determined defendant could sort claims files using specific codes, court found defendant?s assertions ?disingenuous? and ordered production of the requested files; where defendant claimed search remained unduly burdensome because of need to convert certain files to allow text searching, court reasoned that ?the fact that answering [request for relevant discovery] will be burdensome and expensive is not in itself a reason for the court?s refusing to order discovery which is otherwise appropriate? and ordered the production of all documents describing defendant?s electronic means of searching and all software used during the relevant timeframe (as requested by plaintiff) if defendant persisted in claiming an inability to search electronically as a basis for refusing to answer discovery

Nature of Case: Bad faith denial of insurance claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim files

Hale v. Coors Distrib. Co., 2009 WL 1600678 (D. Colo. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff?s counsel?s understanding of defendant?s computer capabilities was ?neither thorough nor accurate? and that the lack of understanding resulted in an inability to adequately articulate the nature of the information sought, and finding that the lack of understanding was attributable to both parties, court considered six part test to determine whether discovery should be re-opened and then granted plaintiff?s request for additional discovery, limited by the court?s instructions

Electronic Data Involved: Database information

In re Application of Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd., 2009 WL 119374 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Reasoning that electronic storage devices ?perform the same function as did a file cabinet in the pre-electronic era? and that they must therefore be searched ?just as they would have had to do had all the information been printed out and stored in hard copy format? and also reasoning that ?[t]he fact that duplicate documents may have been stored and maintained in more than one place is irrelevant to the duty to search all locations,? court ordered respondents to subpoenas to conduct additional searches of all electronic storage devices in their possession at the time of their response; where the sharing of production costs had been ordered, court required requesting party to post $1 million pre-judgment cost bond in light of the ?circumstances of the case? including respondents? expenditure of more than $2.5 million and fears that the requesting party would dispute their share and attempt to avoid payment

Nature of Case: Litigation between an international law firm and a new firm comprised of its former employees related to the new firm?s alleged interference in business relationships and breach of certain duties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chevron USA, Inc. v. M & M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 2431926 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court found defendant had perjured himself, including making untrue statements about the existence of relevant evidence, had willfully disobeyed the court?s order to produce ?substantial documents,? and had knowingly and intentionally either destroyed or ordered destroyed relevant electronically stored information, court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Lawsuit arising from defendant’s breach of contract and defendant’s undereporting of revenue and underpayment of taxes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Oracle USA v. SAP AG, 264 F.R.D. 541 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Pursuant to the authority granted by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 16, court granted defendants? motion to preclude plaintiffs? presentation of evidence of certain damages where plaintiffs failed to timely inform defendants of their vastly expanded damages claims (despite their ability to do so) and failed to timely supplement their initial disclosures accordingly, and where such expansion would prejudice the defendants in light of the volume of information to be analyzed and the attendant cost; court?s analysis relied in part upon the extensive discovery that had already been undertaken

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Evidence of expanded damages claims

In re Nat. Fin. Enter., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 87618 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where party failed to provide adequate explanation for non-disclosure of relevant email and engaged in other questionable behavior, including providing evasive responses to deposition questions, but where scope of prejudice to opposing party was ?not clear,? court declined to impose dispositive sanctions but ordered discovery re-opened to allow deposition regarding the email and surrounding issues

Sanders v. Kohler, 2009 WL 4067265 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the court interpreted defendant?s response to plaintiff?s second motion to compel to mean that defendant had complied with its preservation obligations and may produce additional materials and explicitly required defendant to immediately notify the court if that interpretation was not accurate ? and where that interpretation was not accurate but was not corrected by defendant – court granted plaintiff?s third motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all ESI and other responsive documents with an affidavit describing the steps taken to ensure such production and warned defendant that if ?counsel makes this kind of mistake again? the court would impose sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Triple-I Corp. v. Hudson Assocs. Consulting, Inc., 2009 WL 1210882 (D. Kan. May 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions for production of unreadable cds where there was no indication that the issue was discussed prior to the filing of the motion and no evidence as to who was at fault but ordered defendants to make the records available in a readable format and, if electronic copies were not readable, to print the materials for production; for defendants’ failure to produce documents pursuant to court order and for ?evasive and inappropriate? responses to requests for clarification about that failure, court ordered monetary sanctions against defense counsel personally where the court determined such responses were the result of her tactical decisions

Nature of Case: Interference with contractual relationship and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations