Motion for Sanctions – Page 112 – Electronic Discovery Law

Select Med. Corp. v. Hardaway, 2006 WL 859741 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation inference based upon former employee’s deletion of files on home computer, since plaintiff could not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from alleged spoliation or show that former employee was “at fault” for deleting the files, i.e., that he intended to impair plaintiff’s ability to uncover evidence; employee claimed to have deleted the files to ensure that he no longer had access to plaintiff’s information after he resigned his employment

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Files on former employee’s home computer

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ appeal of magistrate’s order and would permit plaintiffs to raise evidentiary objections to certain evidence at trial, notwithstanding terms of pretrial order which required in limine motions to be filed by certain date, since defendants’ tardy production of hundreds of responsive emails and/or non-compliance with discovery orders made it impossible for plaintiffs to raise those objections as motions in limine

Nature of Case: Beneficiaries of employment benefit health plans asserted class action claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Burkybile v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 2006 WL 3191541 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 17, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion for entry of default as discovery sanction but ordered defendant to provide a printout of data relevant to the pertinent time period, noting that, although original printouts underlying certain reports no longer existed, the data used to create them still existed in the database and was accessible, and the reports could be recreated, even if not exactly. The court elaborated: “It may in fact be the database, like some sort of digital organism, changes over time. But it does not follow that the critical underlying information is no longer obtainable at all. Perhaps the information utilized . . . in preparing the reports can no longer be reproduced identically . . . But it does not follow that there cannot be some reasonable approximation that will give to the plaintiff the information ordered be produced.”

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database reports

Performance Chevrolet, Inc. v. Market Scan Info. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 1042359 (D. Idaho Apr. 18, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied parties’ cross-motions for sanctions based upon spoliation; deletion of software files was unauthorized act by an employee of plaintiff 14 months before case was filed and litigation was not yet reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Contract breach and fraud involving leased software

Electronic Data Involved: Software files on computer hard drive

Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In follow-up to earlier decision awarding sanctions for discovery failings (Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006)), court awarded Phoenix its attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion for sanctions in the amount of $45,162, to be paid equally by the SRC Defendants and their law firm; court further ruled that the SRC Defendants’ share ?may not be borne by their insurance carriers?

Nature of Case: Investment company sued former advisor for breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives and servers

Bedford, LLC v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3616434 (Wash. App. Dec. 11, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in denying motion for curative jury instructions, a sanction of default, and, after the verdict, a new trial, based upon defendant’s failure to produce a draft expert report; finding no misconduct, trial court had observed: “While I agree that . . . hard copies of draft [expert] reports are discoverable, I am aware of no legal principle that would require a testifying expert witness to separately retain all electronic drafts, including those that were overridden or subsumed during the drafting process.”

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Draft expert report

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2006 WL 5097357 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court found that litigation tactic employed by HP, in making such an extraordinary voluminous, twelfth hour production, was “disturbing,” but denied plaintiffs’ request that HP prepare a detailed index of material produced since it would be unduly harsh and potentially intrusive on attorney work product; court instead invited plaintiffs to seek additional, limited discovery if appropriate and noted tactic might be relevant to court’s declaring the lawsuit an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in the event plaintiffs’ infringement claims were successful

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Over 38 gigabytes of ESI produced late in discovery

Smoliak v. Greyhound Lines Inc., 2006 WL 1029643 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate issued Certification of Facts for a Finding of Contempt relating to conduct of non-party Brett Cormier, a relative and employer of plaintiff who had consistently failed to comply with discovery orders or produce salary and employment records; court had previously stated: “The Court is still reluctant to order an inspection of Cormier’s computer, at his expense, to obtain this information since it seems an extreme, expensive, and unnecessarily invasive process to obtain what should be relatively easy information about Plaintiff’s income. However, Cormier must be more cooperative in producing the limited information requested of him or the Court may be left with no other option. . . . Work history and salary information is simple, straightforward information that every reputable business maintains in a variety of easily retrievable formats, and the Court simply does not accept the representations heretofore made for why Brett Cormier cannot locate this information. This issue is getting tiresome and has occupied far too much of this Court’s time and energy.”

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Salary and employment information

Tekena USA, LLC v. Fisher, 2006 WL 2536631 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: District court affirmed bankruptcy court’s orders appointing a receiver to monitor debtor’s operations in order to preserve debtor’s assets, and restraining debtor from destroying any records or computer files, where trustee showed that, among other discovery abuses, the debtor’s business data contained on hard drives had been destroyed

Nature of Case: Appeal from bankruptcy court ruling

Electronic Data Involved: Business data on hard drives

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2006 WL 3500962 (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate judge barred Dell from using certain documents at trial since plaintiff had no notice that the documents would be relied upon by Dell to support its defenses until the documents were specifically produced after the discovery deadline; court noted that, although the documents were among some 542,917 documents produced by Dell in electronic form and in a searchable format using a CaseData System, there was no evidence that Dell ever identified any of the documents provided on the CaseData System as responsive to any particular discovery request, and documents were neither produced as “kept in the ordinary course of business” nor as “ordinarily maintained”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

Tag:Motion for Sanctions