Motion for Sanctions – Page 114 – Electronic Discovery Law

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2349985 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Further to its May 8, 2006 order imposing severe sanctions against Krumwiede for willful and bad faith spoliation of evidence, court awarded Brighton $111,348 for its costs and fees relating to sanctions motion

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

Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 2006 WL 3445610 (D. Mass. Nov. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In follow up to earlier decision dismissing complaint as sanction for plaintiff’s discovery misconduct, court awarded defendant $35,000 in attorneys’ fees and full costs of $20,472 since forensic computer experts were “particularly necessary to uncover plaintiff’s skulduggery”

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

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

Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 6040466 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant never attempted to preserve email related to disputed products, did not impose email preservation directive and did not suspend policy of destroying all email after 30 days, but asserted that no relevant email was destroyed because its employees never exchanged emails on topics relevant to lawsuit, court declined to enter default judgment absent stronger proof of bad faith intent and reserved decision on adverse inference instruction; court would allow parties to explore with witnesses at trial whether they exchanged and then destroyed relevant email

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Elion v. Jackson, 2006 WL 2583694 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant did not produce a particular email in response to interrogatories or document requests and it only came to light during a deposition a few days before the close of all discovery, court granted plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) and ordered that defendant be precluded from offering in evidence any and all documents not timely produced during discovery, including the subject email, and from offering the testimony of any witness with respect to the email or any other documents not timely disclosed

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Roberts v. Whitfill, 191 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Reversing plaintiff’s $800,000 jury verdict on other grounds, state appellate court expressed concern about spoliation instruction given by trial court since plaintiff had not pursued motion to compel, there was doubt about the materiality and relevance of the data and how or if its absence seriously impaired plaintiff’s ability to present her case, defendant had provided an explanation for the data’s removal from his computer and had offered to produce at least some of the data in paper form or print specific reports, and spoliation instruction given appeared to be excessive based upon surrounding circumstances and spoliation instructions recently approved by Texas courts

Nature of Case: Former partner alleged antitrust violations, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims

Electronic Data Involved: QuickBooks data

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

Goldman v. Healthcare Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 3589065 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence, concluding that, although defendants may have been negligent in their deletion of lines of source code, the record did not support a finding of bad faith or prejudice

Nature of Case: Unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

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

Tag:Motion for Sanctions