Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 40

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Whitney v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2008 WL 2156324 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where handwritten IIR was included with numerous other similar documents and destroyed en masse by airline under document retention policy, court found that, although there was a ?disturbing amount of carelessness on defendant’s part? in its retention and production of the IIRs, plaintiff had not demonstrated that handwritten IIR would have been favorable to her case or that she was prejudiced by its absence; accordingly, court declined to impose any spoliation sanctions but awarded plaintiff her fees and costs in connection with motion

Nature of Case: Airline passenger allegedly injured by another passenger sued airline claiming negligent failure to protect and gross negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Original handwritten ?Inflight Irregularity Report? and conflicting electronic versions of same

Bryant v. Gardner, 587 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to preserve laptop by continued use and by running defragmentation program, court imposed sanction of fees and costs and precluded defendants from making particular arguments that became unverifiable as result of failure to preserve; where forensic examination revealed creation of false evidence on laptop, court ordered accused defendant to show cause why matter should not be referred for prosecution

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 572 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider dismissal of plaintiffs? case as sanction for ?campaign of fraud? that included intentionally wiping data, ?losing? original CDs and tape recordings, and misrepresentations to the court where the court found plaintiff?s behavior willful and prejudicial and where lesser sanctions would not have sufficed and where plaintiffs? alleged ?new evidence? was also ?suspect?; dismissal affirmed on appeal (2010 WL 2294538)

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Americas LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Seventh Circuit upheld trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as sanction for flagrant discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Dealerships sued for breach of contract and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Financial data

Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?

Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server

Lessley v. City of Madison, Ind., 2008 WL 4977328 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to timely respond to discovery requests, failed to respond to two motions to compel, and where individual defendant testified he made no attempt to look for files or emails in response to discovery requests, Court granted motion for sanctions and issued order setting final deadline for production, barring all of defendants? objections to production except attorney-client privilege, fining defendants $1,000 and ordering payment of plaintiffs? attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Suit for damages resulting from improper strip search

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Ingoglia v. Barnes & Noble Coll. Booksellers, Inc., 852 N.Y.S.2d 337 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Appellate court reversed trial court?s denial of motion to dismiss complaint as sanction for spoliation, and granted motion to dismiss, where defendant’s expert found that numerous files, images, and folders, as well as some history of the plaintiff’s internet usage had been deleted between date defendant demanded inspection of plaintiff’s computer and date of inspection, and evidence showed that defendant suffered severe prejudice

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Files on plaintiff’s home computer

L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees

Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations