Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations

1
Graske v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 647 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Neb. 2009)
2
Smith v. Life Investors Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2045197 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2009)
3
Transcap Assoc., Inc. v. Euler Hermes Am. Credit Indemnity Co., 2009 WL 3260014 (N.D. Ill Oct. 9, 2009)
4
Am. Serv. Mktg., Corp. v. Bushnell, 2009 WL 1870887 (E.D. La. June 25, 2009)
5
Estrada v. Dehli Cmty. Ctr., 2009 WL 3359194 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2009)
6
Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009)
7
Spooner v. Egan, 2009 WL 2175063 (D. Me. July 21, 2009)
8
MRT, Inc. v. Vounckx, 299 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)
9
Zhang v. Ing Direct, 2009 WL 234487 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2009)
10
Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Graske v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 647 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Neb. 2009)

Key Insight: Where, when producing voluminous documents in response to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 they must be accompanied by indices ?to guide the interrogating party to the responsive documents? and where ?rules applicable to producing documents under Rule 33(d) are generally applicable to Rule 34?, court ordered defendant to provide more detailed responses to plaintiffs requests for discovery upon defendants? production of 7000 pages and indication that ?all 7000 pages of documents were responsive to each request?; court reasoned, ?Defendant’s claims that the documents are sufficiently organized because they are bates-stamped and scanned into a CD-ROM are unavailing. Defendant did not refer to specific bates numbers when it responded to the discovery requests at issue, and the fact that the documents can be electronically searched by key term is not sufficient to discharge defendant’s duty to sufficiently identify the location of the relevant documents.?

Nature of Case: Breach of faith and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Smith v. Life Investors Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2045197 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant performed electronic search ?without plaintiff?s input? and then refused to produce its search terms claiming attorney work product, court cited Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251, 262 (D.Md.2008), for the proposition that ?the party performing the search had a duty to demonstrate that its methodology was reasonable? and, noting that ?a thorough explanation of the search terms and procedures used would be a large step in that direction,? granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court granted Plaintiff?s Motion to Resolve a Disputed Claim of Privilege Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) finding the documents at issue were not subject to protection and need not be returned to defendant

Nature of Case: Class action involving “interpretation fo the term ‘actual damages’ in a supplemental cancer insurance policy”

Electronic Data Involved: Search terms

Transcap Assoc., Inc. v. Euler Hermes Am. Credit Indemnity Co., 2009 WL 3260014 (N.D. Ill Oct. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant ?produced? archived marketing materials by directing plaintiff to website commonly known as the Way Back Machine (which itself warned of missing links and image in webpages) and did not establish or allege that it maintained material on the Way Back Machine in the ordinary course of business, and where the court determined defendant had not adequately investigated the existence of responsive documents in paper form, court granted motion to compel and ordered defendant to conduct ?a thorough search? for responsive documents and to produce them in paper or electronic format within 14 days; court ordered plaintiff to pay attorneys fees and costs and imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff for the numerous discovery violations addressed in the opinion

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage action

Electronic Data Involved: Way Back Machine

Am. Serv. Mktg., Corp. v. Bushnell, 2009 WL 1870887 (E.D. La. June 25, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff alleged defendant violated the preliminary injunction by deleting files he was directed to preserve and return to plaintiff, including using wiping software to delete files hours before producing his computer for inspection, court denied plaintiff?s motion for contempt finding that ?without some other indication that [defendant] deliberately deleted files referenced in the preliminary injunction,? plaintiff failed to present the ?clear and convincing evidence? required to warrant a finding of contempt

Nature of Case: Federal trademark and state law breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Estrada v. Dehli Cmty. Ctr., 2009 WL 3359194 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Court imposed terminating sanctions against plaintiff and monetary sanctions upon counsel for egregious discovery abuses; client?s abuses included refusal to produce relevant information despite agreement and/or a court order to do so and willful installation of a new operating system on a computer subject to preservation and production, among other things; counsel?s abuses included delay in responding to discovery, misrepresentations to the court and opposing counsel, and refusal to produce relevant information despite a court order

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination/ sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced only portions of a requested manual in an alleged effort to save expenses despite its ability to reproduce the whole manual ?almost instantaneously? by computer to compact disc, and where defendant failed to produce other easily accessible and relevant documents, court declined to enter default judgment because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice but ordered monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Spooner v. Egan, 2009 WL 2175063 (D. Me. July 21, 2009)

Key Insight: As sanction for defendants late production of relevant ESI and forensic images of relevant hard drives in violation of the court?s order, court declined to impose terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from introducing at trial any documents untimely produced or from presenting witnesses plaintiff first became aware of only in defendants? untimely disclosures; court also ordered defendants to pay plaintiff?s attorney fees and costs

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic images of hard drives

MRT, Inc. v. Vounckx, 299 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Affirming the trial court?s judgment, appellate court found appellees did not fail to comply with discovery obligations or conceal facts, despite failure to initially identify or search backup tapes, where appellant failed to initially request production of backup tapes and where appellees later offered evidence of the unreasonableness of such a request upon court?s order to detail search efforts – court?s analysis also focused on the parties? failure to confer regarding electronic discovery pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.4; distinguishing Zubulake, court also found no duty to preserve pre-2000 backup tapes where appellants failed to establish that appellees knew or should have known that the tapes contained ?material and relevant evidence? and thus failed to establish appellees? duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Misrepresentations and fraudulent inducement

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Zhang v. Ing Direct, 2009 WL 234487 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Where, in response to request for documents indicating an effort to find work, defendant produced a list of emails and screen shots from his computer, but not the emails themselves, court found defendants response inadequate and ordered production of all relevant documents in his possession

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs did not deny their failure to preserve relevant documents previously in their possession, did not deny their failure to search for documents demanded, save one plaintiff who limited search to what he described as ?reasonably accessible? information, did not deny their failure to supplement their responses to interrogatories as promised, and did not deny providing contradictory answers regarding documents in their possession, court rejected arguments that sanctions were unnecessary because of a lack of resulting prejudice and arguments that the documents were ?barely relevant? and ordered an adverse inference instruction in favor of defendants

Nature of Case: Violation of Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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