Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations – Page 48

Willbros Eng’rs, Inc. v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 2007 WL 2891500 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 28, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s attorneys? repeated inaccurate representations that all responsive documents had been produced demonstrated gross negligence but not intentional bad faith, and belated production necessitated re-opening discovery and continuing trial date, court concluded that requested sanction of dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and default judgment against plaintiff on cross-claims was too harsh and that lesser (monetary) sanctions were appropriate

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files relating to $100 million construction project, computer index, audiotapes of meetings

In re EZ Pay Servs., Inc., 380 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court approved Trustee?s request for permission to pay computer forensics expert $70,000 as a necessary cost and expense of preserving the estate, where recovery of deleted electronic information was necessary to enable Trustee to locate and administer valuable assets of estate and to understand debtor’s prepetition transactions, and where expert?s services provided a concrete benefit for the estate since approximately $400,000 in assets was recovered by Trustee as a result

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy case

Electronic Data Involved: 14 hard drives; deleted data

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1875928 (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of magistrate judge’s March 12, 2007 order awarding plaintiff $22,371 in expenses and attorney’s fees as sanction for defendant’s discovery violations

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., 2007 WL 2758571 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for numerous categories of documents that court ordered be produced, did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for ESI, and did not suspend its document destruction policy or otherwise take adequate steps to preserve documents, among other forms of relief court ordered defendant to retain at its own expense an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect responsive ESI; court further indicated it would impose $125,000 in sanctions representing reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees expended by plaintiff as result of defendant’s discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Licensing and distribution claims, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1514005 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where magistrate judge found that defendant “deliberately and stubbornly refused to produce the most basic information about its Ohio contacts and has likely destroyed much of that information after it put those contacts directly at issue,” magistrate judge denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as least drastic discovery sanction and awarded plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the sanctions motion

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Database

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court approved plaintiff’s fee petition and awarded $79,606 in attorneys’ fees and $19,856 in expenses, for a total of $99,462, as sanction for defendant’s intentional destruction of laptop computer

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1989752 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: After conducting de novo review of the matters raised by defendant’s objections to magistrate judge’s May 22, 2007 order, district court adopted magistrate judge’s recommended sanction (i.e., denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and imposing monetary sanctions) and ordered defendant to file answer to complaint within 10 days

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 3046233 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant traveled 20 miles to dispose of his computer in a construction site dumpster within days of receiving notice of lawsuit, court found that defendant acted in bad faith but that sanction of default judgment was too severe since plaintiff’s claims were not “severely” or “incurably” prejudiced as a result; court instead deemed certain facts conclusively proven and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with motion and related discovery

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Although court decided it could not hold either party in contempt, it advised that parties? exchange of emails and written correspondence did not satisfy meet and confer requirement contained in court’s earlier Case Management Order; court understood the phrase to mean “a conference in which opposing parties actually talk to one another”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In follow-up to earlier decision awarding sanctions for discovery failings (Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006)), court awarded Phoenix its attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion for sanctions in the amount of $45,162, to be paid equally by the SRC Defendants and their law firm; court further ruled that the SRC Defendants’ share ?may not be borne by their insurance carriers?

Nature of Case: Investment company sued former advisor for breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives and servers

Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations