Motion for Sanctions – Page 101 – Electronic Discovery Law

Permasteelisa CS Corp. v. Airolite Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2491747 (S.D. Ohio June 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied motion for adverse inference brought by plaintiff under FRCP 51 one week before bench trial and based on destruction and replacement of computers allegedly containing relevant emails, finding that plaintiff had waived right to seek adverse inference since plaintiff knew about alleged spoliation for over a year, had plenty of time to move for discovery sanctions or raise issue in final pretrial order, and offered no explanation for delay in bringing matter to court?s attention

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged fraudulent transfer of assets

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, discarded computers

Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Remanding case for new trial on other grounds, appellate court noted that trial court may have committed an error of law, in analyzing plaintiff?s request for adverse inference instruction as sanction for government?s failure to preserve email, by equating the intentional conduct necessary for such an instruction with bad faith; appellate court would leave it to trial court to consider request for adverse inference instruction on remand, but observed that (even absent a court order) the duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before litigation when party reasonably should know that evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish custodians? possession of relevant emails beyond speculation or vague assertions, and where responding party already produced ?voluminous amounts of email,? court declined to compel production of emails from either custodian

Nature of Case: Breach of contract (non-conforming goods)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Thermodyne Corp. v. 3M Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion in limine for adverse inference for alleged spoliation, despite evidence that files were deleted, where plaintiff offered only conjecture regarding the relevance of the allegedly spoliated documents, where defendant had the means to recover the allegedly spoliated contents of the files and did not, and where defendant failed to show plaintiff acted deliberately with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of the data

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

S. Capitol Enters., Inc. v. Conseco Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 4724427 (M.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Noting that ?perfection in document production is not required?, court denied plaintiffs? motion for sanctions or additional discovery orders where defendants offered valid reasons for the non-production of some data, performed a thorough search of their systems for the requested information, and explained that there were no other sources to search and where the burden of production outweighed the likely benefit; court indicated that ?experts can extrapolate and estimate from available data in order to perform calculations and provide opinions.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Fortis Ins. Co., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1184 C.D. Cal. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, court drew adverse inference from plaintiff’s loss of records, “i.e., that the records from Mr. Wyatt’s May, 2002 hospital visit are unfavorable to Plaintiff and, therefore, suggest Mr. Wyatt had a pre-existing condition during the October and December, 2002 medical treatment,” as an appropriate sanction due to the prejudice their loss caused defendant in the litigation

Nature of Case: Medical provider sued insurer for failure to pay for services provided to insured

Electronic Data Involved: Medical records relating to insured’s earlier emergency room visit

In re Gupta, 263 S.W. 3d 184 (2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Appellate court denied petition for writ of mandamus where trial court appropriately ordered ?death penalty sanctions? (struck all pleadings) for defendant?s discovery violations including repeated failure to produce relevant information, repeated production of fraudulent materials, including diskettes and computers, and repeated false representations to the court; plaintiff filed three motions to compel and at least two motions for sanctions resulting in more than $60,000 in fines before imposition of ?death penalty sanctions? by trial court

Nature of Case: Fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, diskettes, ESI

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 210018 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied Spain’s motion to reconsider November 3, 2006 Opinion and Order rejecting the various reasons offered as support

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, P.A., 2007 WL 773722 (D. Kan. Mar. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where court had earlier ordered production and inspection of defendants’ computer, but had also entered a protective order governing such production and inspection, court declined to sanction defendants and found that the most “just manner” to apportion fees and costs was for each of the parties to pay their own

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs claimed defendants wrongfully disclosed plaintiffs’ confidential medical information stored on a computer hard drive by placing the computer on the curb for trash disposal

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive of subject computer

Tag:Motion for Sanctions