Tag:Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations

1
Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)
2
Chavannes v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 232 F.R.D. 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006)
3
Tekena USA, LLC v. Fisher, 2006 WL 2536631 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2006)
4
OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)
5
Barker Capital LLC v. Rebus LLC, 2006 WL 247114 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2006) (Unpublished)
6
Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)
7
Kemper Mortgage, Inc. v. Russell, 2006 WL 4968120 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2006)
8
Pioneer Res. Corp. v. Nami Res.Co., LLC, 2006 WL 1635651 (E.D. Ky. June 8, 2006)
9
Krausz Puente LLC v. Westall, 2005 WL 236862 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2005) (Unpublished)
10
United States v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 374 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2004), rev’d, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005)

Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion

Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Chavannes v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 232 F.R.D. 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had originally asserted work product protection regarding videotape recording of insured’s funeral, but failed to adequately explain the circumstances which led to his statements that the video existed or the circumstances surrounding his claimed discovery that no such video existed, court ordered plaintiff to produce video or explain in detail any reasons for non-production

Nature of Case: Beneficiary sued insurer to recover death benefit

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape recording of funeral

Tekena USA, LLC v. Fisher, 2006 WL 2536631 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2006)

Key Insight: District court affirmed bankruptcy court’s orders appointing a receiver to monitor debtor’s operations in order to preserve debtor’s assets, and restraining debtor from destroying any records or computer files, where trustee showed that, among other discovery abuses, the debtor’s business data contained on hard drives had been destroyed

Nature of Case: Appeal from bankruptcy court ruling

Electronic Data Involved: Business data on hard drives

OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied party’s motion to compel financial data in searchable electronic format in part because moving party had itself refused to produce its financials in searchable electronic format

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial materials produced on CD in unsearchable “TIFF” format

Barker Capital LLC v. Rebus LLC, 2006 WL 247114 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court directed plaintiff’s counsel to submit an affidavit re attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with certain depositions and three motions to compel, where defendants produced certain corporate minutes and other documents after the close of discovery, and where defendants had failed to produce emails and other electronic documents from all available sources despite their general counsel’s earlier affidavit to the contrary

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and other electronic documents

Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment as discovery sanction where forensic evidence showed that defendant deliberately used ?wiping? software to permanently remove data from her hard drive and stated: “The sanction in the present case is to deter other defendants in similar cases from attempting to destroy or conceal evidence of their wrongdoing.”

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Kemper Mortgage, Inc. v. Russell, 2006 WL 4968120 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff presented convincing evidence at preliminary injunction hearing of defendant’s intentional spoliation of evidence, including his installation of file ?shredder? program on laptop computer the day before litigation was filed and under threat of its commencement, court allowed inference that that considerably more evidence of misconduct would have been found without the spoliation and granted preliminary injunction barring defendant from, among other things, destroying or deleting relevant ESI

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer

Pioneer Res. Corp. v. Nami Res.Co., LLC, 2006 WL 1635651 (E.D. Ky. June 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Defendant ordered to make good faith effort to locate responsive emails that were discussed at deposition; if defendant claims that such documents cannot be retrieved, defendant must file a written statement indicating all steps taken to obtain said emails and explain in detail why they could not be retrieved; defendant further warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions being imposed

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Krausz Puente LLC v. Westall, 2005 WL 236862 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Trial judge did not err in imposing monetary sanctions and evidentiary sanction against individual defendant limiting the scope of his testimony, where defendant delayed for several days and deleted relevant computer files in violation of court’s order requiring defendant to “immediately make available to Plaintiff’s designated expert all computers, including hard drives and all other electronic storage media in [defendant’s] possession, custody and/or control”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: 5,300 computer files

United States v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 374 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2004), rev’d, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005)

Key Insight: Conviction of Arthur Anderson for obstructing an official proceeding of the SEC affirmed; conviction was based on government’s allegations that, in order to protect the firm and the firm’s largest single account (Enron), Anderson ordered a mass destruction of documents to keep them from the hands of the SEC; Anderson unsuccessfully attempted to cloak the destruction of documents under the auspices of its document retention policies

Nature of Case: Criminal charge of obstructing an official proceeding of the SEC

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard copy documents

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.