Motion for Sanctions – Page 105 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2007 WL 214320 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Upon remand from district court judge, magistrate set out various reasons why he denied plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it sought to impose sanctions for defendant’s alleged failure to produce all spreadsheet materials in native format, its failure to timely produce spreadsheet materials, and its conduct in re-producing spreadsheet materials in non-native format that had already been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 781648 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court awarded $22,371 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with earlier motion to compel that court granted on November 14, 2006; court further ordered that plaintiff’s second motion to compel relating to the same issues would be set for hearing

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

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

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

Clearone Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2007 WL 3275300 (D. Utah Nov. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where object of two prior orders granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel immediate backup and imaging of certain defendants’ computers was preservation of evidence, court denied plaintiff’s later motion for order adopting 170-word search protocol that was separate and apart from any particular discovery request, since prior orders did not “contemplate that ClearOne have carte blanche access to the electronic data filtered only by keyword searching and privilege objections”

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror images of hard drives

Williams v. ACS Consultant Co., Inc., 2007 WL 2822777 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Although spoliation was shown based on individual plaintiff’s failure to return laptop to defendant for approximately seven months after court first ordered him to do so, destruction of files and other information and use of file-deletion and free-space wiping products on laptop, court denied motion to dismiss complaint as spoliation sanction because prejudice to defendant was not established — three months of discovery remained and it was not clear that defendant would not be able to obtain much of the evidence sought

Nature of Case: Racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Employer-issued laptop

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

Armamburu v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 2020181 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant asserted that certain data was ?dumped? from its computer system on an ?automatic and periodic basis,? but failed to provide a date or time period when such data was deleted or state whether a diligent effort was made to obtain such information in either electronic or paper format, court found that further discovery was necessary before it could determine whether spoliation sanctions were appropriate and ordered defendant to provide information on when alleged ?data dump? occurred, what information was deleted, and whether backup tapes and/or paper records exist that may provide requested information

Nature of Case: Putative class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information pertaining to the number of prospective class members, including their names and addresses

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

Tag:Motion for Sanctions