Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations

1
Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 3064663 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2009)
2
1100 West, LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009)
3
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 2008 WL 744723 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008)
4
CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)
5
Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc. v. Metro. Employment Corp. of Am., 2008 WL 5156609 (D. Mass. Dec. 5, 2008)
6
Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)
7
Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008)
8
U.S. v. Poulin, 592 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Me. 2008)
9
U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)
10
Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)

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

 

Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 2008 WL 744723 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Sixth Circuit affirmed district court’s entry of default judgment and subsequent default award of $3,430,983.69 damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees as sanction for defendant’s egregious discovery abuse; among other things, defendant failed to comply with Parties? Agreed Order regarding electronic discovery, replaced company computers despite pending litigation, refused to produce home computer even though he admitted it had been used for business purposes, refused to produce key player?s computer, and failed to turn over all electronic evidence

Nature of Case: Fraud and RICO claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, email

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel production of essentially every document in defendant?s possession, failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions, repeatedly ?filled the record with invective? and made misrepresentations to court, and where defendant had produced in native format over 1.4 million pages of documents as result of electronic search using plaintiff?s 102 search terms in addition to numerous versions of source code and paper documents, and was in substantial compliance with discovery at time of hearing, and where court had previously imposed cost shifting by ordering production of certain documents contingent upon plaintiff bearing $300,000 of defendant?s privilege review expense, court further ruled that defendant was entitled, under Rule 37(a)(5), to an additional $86,787 representing 75 percent of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc. v. Metro. Employment Corp. of Am., 2008 WL 5156609 (D. Mass. Dec. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to order preliminary injunction requiring defendants to image hard drives for production and to produce copies of all electronic files related to the action where plaintiff alleged that defendants destroyed ESI on plaintiff?s server but did not state who deleted it or how, and where plaintiff failed to show the information was not available elsewhere or that ample protection was not provided by the preservation obligations under the Federal Rules or the rules of the American Arbitration Association

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database

U.S. v. Poulin, 592 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Me. 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s audio consultant identified potential inaccuracies between the audio tapes produced and the original recordings, and where the original recordings were subject to disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, court granted plaintiff?s motion for access to the original Exxacom system recordings ?to confirm that the recordings?are faithful reproductions?; acknowledging defendant?s burden in re-production where many hours had already been spent, court observed, ?The Government?s burden is measured in hours; the Defendant?s in years.?

Nature of Case: Criminal production of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees

Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a 30(b)(6) deponent with sufficient knowledge of designated topics and monetary sanctions against defendant where defendants? designated deponent was unable to answer ?the most basic questions? regarding defendants? response to discovery including what computers were searched for documents, what backup tapes or other media was searched, and what backup media was utilized by the company; court stated that deponent had obligation to educate self on designated issues prior to deposition

Nature of Case: Statutory Action arising from 18 U.S.C. ? 2511 (Wiretapping)

Electronic Data Involved: Testimony from 30(b)(6) deponent regarding discovery responses

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