Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 WL 128966 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007)
2
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1875928 (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2007)
3
Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)
4
Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)
5
Friel v. Papa, 829 N.Y.S.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
6
Legacy, Inc. v. Tekserve POS, LLC, 2007 WL 772958 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2007)
7
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1514005 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2007)
8
Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)
9
Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4513203 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2007)
10
Tilton v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 2007 WL 3229157 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 30, 2007)

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 WL 128966 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: District judge modified magistrate’s December 4, 2006 sanctions order, allowing Dell to use the 57 disputed documents at trial since it concluded that Dell had provided the documents in a way that fulfilled all of its discovery obligations and DE had not moved to compel production of the documents in a different format

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

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

Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced employment statistics from its database on a CD, but not in the format that plaintiffs wanted, court found that defendant had complied with Rule 34(b) requirement that ESI be produced ?in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable,? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment statistics

Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants submitted evidence under penalty of perjury explaining reasons why they were able to locate only two of the four requested videotapes despite three searches, and defendant submitted no evidence that defendants had tampered with evidence, that the tape was intentionally destroyed, or that defendants were lying, court denied motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: State prisoner asserted civil rights claims claiming use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotapes

Friel v. Papa, 829 N.Y.S.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Key Insight: Appellate court reversed portion of lower court’s order that granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer as sanction for spoliation of evidence based on destruction of defendant’s computer hard drive, since plaintiffs inspected the hard drive and obtained the relevant information prior to its destruction and did not demonstrate any prejudice

Nature of Case: Defamation and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Legacy, Inc. v. Tekserve POS, LLC, 2007 WL 772958 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant discarded his hard drive the day after the lawsuit was filed, court granted plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions but ordered plaintiff to pare down the requested fees and expenses to those having a proximate causal nexus to the spoliation; court further ordered counsel to meet and confer on the issue

Nature of Case: Company sued former employee who downloaded proprietary files just prior to resigning and going to work for competitor

Electronic Data Involved: Confidential files

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

Square D Co. v. Scott Elec. Co., 2007 WL 3488809 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Declining to impose sanctions at this stage of litigation, court reiterated its prior order requiring defendant to submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which record its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such products, with such inspection to be incurred at defendant’s sole expense and cost; court further denied defendant’s motion for protective order for lack of good cause

Nature of Case: Circuit breaker manufacturer alleged that defendants unlawfully imported, distributed, and sold counterfeit Square D products

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer systems

Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4513203 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2007)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, since plaintiff offered no specific evidence that any of the destroyed emails contained relevant information

Nature of Case: Claimed violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tilton v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 2007 WL 3229157 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants had not shown that plaintiff’s initial disclosures or discovery responses were incomplete or incorrect and parties were not subject to any court order requiring them to produce documents created after the discovery deadline, and applicable legal authority was scant and fairly debatable, court declined to decide whether plaintiff was required to produce emails created after the close of discovery and ruled that plaintiff?s conduct was not sanctionable

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sued publisher alleging breach of a promise to keep his name and employer confidential

Electronic Data Involved: Email created after close of discovery

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