Motion for Sanctions – Page 112 – Electronic Discovery Law

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2714609 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Further to its previous orders imposing $111,348 in sanctions against Krumwiede for willful and bad faith spoliation of evidence, and where Krumwiede presented no evidence of financial inability to pay sanctions amount, court ordered Krumwiede to pay sanctions within 30 days or the remainder of his pleadings would be stricken

Nature of Case: Former employee who went to work for competitor sued for back pay and reformation of employment agreement; former employer asserted counterclaims for breach of non-compete and confidentiality clauses and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3476735 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff provided only partial production and made false representations to court about non-existence of responsive documents, court imposed monetary sanctions and would deem as true certain contentions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email concerning customer communications

Lighthouse Community Church of God v. City of Southfield, 2006 WL 1662615 (E.D. Mich. June 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s request to inspect defendant’s computer system, court ordered defendant to produce all emails in its possession or control that were responsive to particular request for production, or provide a privilege log as to any emails claimed to be privileged; court warned defendants that failure to comply with the order could result in the imposition of “the most drastic sanctions permissible under Rule 37(b)(2), including striking their pleadings, entry of default judgment, and contempt of court sanctions”

Nature of Case: Following city’s issuance of citation for church’s use of building without certificate of occupancy, church asserted various constitutional claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Dec 01 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

Jacobson v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2006 WL 3146349 (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions, ordered defendant to submit to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding its efforts to locate and produce responsive documents, and ordered defendant to produce key player’s computer for inspection by plaintiff, where evidence showed that the home and/or work computers of a key player and several witnesses had not been searched for responsive documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive; computerized records

Oved & Assocs. Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Los Angeles County Met. Transp. Auth., 2006 WL 1703824 (Cal. App. June 22, 2006) (Nonpublished, Noncitable)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against plaintiff after years of “discovery stonewalling” which culminated in the intentional destruction of evidence; plaintiff “regularly and routinely” disobeyed trial court orders and intentionally destroyed relevant accounting records on hard drive that was to be mirror imaged

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of funds

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting files on hard drive

Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where forensic inspection of plaintiff?s laptop and disks showed evidence of tampering, including: deleted files, system date and time manipulations, access histories showing that various relevant documents were accessed after court?s order and before plaintiff?s second deposition, and other fragments of relevant documents and emails that had not been produced, and plaintiff’s explanations “verge[d] on the absurd,” court found that plaintiff had engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct, dismissed complaint with prejudice, and invited defendant to submit an application for costs and attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; drafts of plaintiff’s resume

Angelotti v. Roth, 2006 WL 3666849 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied request for sanctions or adverse inference instruction based on absence of video footage of plaintiff after arrest since there was no evidence of bad faith and video security system had experienced a number of unexplained problems

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Lawyer for party successfully appealed sanctions imposed on him by trial court following emergency evidentiary hearing regarding the deletion of files from party’s home computer that was subject to inspection order; trial court violated lawyer’s due process protections by failing to provide sufficient notice of the purpose of the emergency hearing or the potential for sanctions

Nature of Case: Underlying claims were settled, and court appointed a receiver

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer, emails

Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 2006 WL 1792413 (6th Cir. June 28, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Sixth circuit affirmed dismissal of complaint as a discovery sanction under FRCP 37(b)(2)(C) and the award of all attorney fees to defendants under 42 U.S.C. ? 1988, where plaintiffs “repeatedly touted and promised to produce critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence, then failed or refused to produce it; belatedly produced an incomplete collection of evidence; falsely stated that they had produced all the evidence ordered; deliberately withheld evidence; strained credulity by claiming that they gave away original tapes of critical conversations, keeping none for themselves, and made no effort to get copies; asserted a nonsensical privilege as a reason for failing to produce more or better evidence of defendants’ allegedly defamatory statements; agreed to seek permission from the state court to produce financial and accounting documents, but never did so; and so on”

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Audio and videotapes supporting plaintiffs’ claims

Tag:Motion for Sanctions