Motion for Sanctions – Page 100 – Electronic Discovery Law

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 2008 WL 4442571 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where parties submitted competing expert testimony in support of and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court also considered and ruled upon parties’ cross-motions to exclude their opponent’s computer forensics expert under FRE 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and USB flash-drive device

Diabetes Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Healthpia Am., Inc., 2008 WL 336382 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where court found that defendants may not have taken adequate steps to preserve emails through a backup process but followed the company’s standard procedures, and if anything, there was negligence derived from lax electronic document maintenance procedures, and that plaintiff?s counsel, at most, may have been lax in that inadequate direction and oversight was given to associate to guide her search for relevant and responsive emails, court concluded that, while all parties were remiss in fulfilling their discovery obligations, there was no evidence of ?bad faith? on the part of either party to warrant an instruction on spoliation and denied parties’ competing sanctions motions

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, laptops

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

Willeford v. Toys ?R? US-Del., Inc., 895 N.E.2d 83 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld order of contempt and declined to expand protective order to keep confidential names and contact information of persons involved in falling merchandise accidents where defendant?s challenges of discovery rulings resulted in five year delay, were not in good faith, and information sought to be protected was not the sort that should be covered by a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Tri-County Motors, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 2008 WL 5063291 (2d Cir. Nov. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish existence or relevance of emails allegedly spoliated or that defendants alleged abuses resulted from willful misconduct or gross negligence, trial court declined to impose sanctions; court of appeals affirmed

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, promissory estoppel, interference with a contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Aecon Buildings Inc. v. Zurich N. Am., 253 F.R.D. 655 (W.D. Wash. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court imposed significant monetary sanction upon finding that defendant violated both the letter and spirit of discovery rules where defendant deliberately concealed existence of electronically stored information by making repeated misrepresentations regarding completeness of production and the existence of additional information and for defendant?s failure to produce the necessary privilege log

Nature of Case: Bad faith failure to defend or indemnify

Electronic Data Involved: Notes made in electronically stored case file

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

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

Dec 01 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

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

Wong v. Thomas, 2008 WL 4224923 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2008) (Not for Publication)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants were able to produce responsive emails from plaintiff?s email account, but could produce no other emails from accounts of various defendants or from Department of State due to routine ?purging? procedures that included closing individuals’ email accounts, deletion of files from their office computers after they leave employment, and routine deletion of files from State’s email servers, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions finding that defendants had acted in good faith and that plaintiff had not met threshold showing of relevancy of any specific evidence that was lost

Nature of Case: Discrimination based on race and national origin, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Motion for Sanctions