Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)
2
Larson v. Bank One Corp., 2005 WL 4652509 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2005)
3
Myrick v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc., 395 F.3d 485 (4th Cir. 2005)
4
Krausz Puente LLC v. Westall, 2005 WL 236862 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2005) (Unpublished)
5
MDS Am., Inc. v MDS Int’l, S.A.R.I., 2005 WL 3107769 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2005)
6
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)
7
Ferrero v. Henderson, 2004 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)
8
Allianz Ins. Co. v. Otero, 353 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
9
Ferrero v. Henderson, 341 F.Supp.2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2004), opinion withdrawn in part on reconsideration, 2005 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)
10
Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2005 WL 1398641 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) (Unpublished)

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, court concluded that adverse inference jury instruction based upon defendant’s mistaken failure to suspend document retention policy that deleted email every 30 days was not misleading or unduly prejudicial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Larson v. Bank One Corp., 2005 WL 4652509 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2005)

Key Insight: Where defendant breached its duty to preserve by failing to establish a “comprehensive document retention policy” and by failing to properly disseminate the policy to its employees, and conduct evinced ?extraordinarily poor judgment? and ?gross negligence” but not willfulness or bad faith, magistrate recommended that prejudice to plaintiff could be remedied by precluding defendant from cross-examining plaintiff’s financial expert and by instructing the jury about the sanction

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Underlying data and calculations

Myrick v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc., 395 F.3d 485 (4th Cir. 2005)

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions and allowed plaintiff to question defendant’s witnesses before the jury regarding its failure to disclose documents immediately, where plaintiff learned through depositions that a tape recording, the complete underwriting and claims file, and other electronic information had not yet been produced

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Tape recording and electronic information

Krausz Puente LLC v. Westall, 2005 WL 236862 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Trial judge did not err in imposing monetary sanctions and evidentiary sanction against individual defendant limiting the scope of his testimony, where defendant delayed for several days and deleted relevant computer files in violation of court’s order requiring defendant to “immediately make available to Plaintiff’s designated expert all computers, including hard drives and all other electronic storage media in [defendant’s] possession, custody and/or control”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: 5,300 computer files

MDS Am., Inc. v MDS Int’l, S.A.R.I., 2005 WL 3107769 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2005)

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment as sanction for tardy production of documents, court found that plaintiff had suffered little prejudice from delay and that defendant had worked diligently, did not willfully withhold responsive documents, and did not improperly modify or delete files froom hard drive before voluntarily producing it

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions and dismissed case with prejudice because, among other things, plaintiffs had failed to preserve relevant electronic data that plaintiffs knew were critical, and it would be impossible for defendants to defend the case without the electronic data that was not produced and no longer available

Nature of Case: Business sued competitors for defamation and unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Ferrero v. Henderson, 2004 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Where parties had settled the amount of attorney fees to be paid to plaintiff as sanction for defendant’s failure to produce crucial payroll records until first day of trial, court reconsidered and withdrew finding of bad faith on part of defense counsel since she had made at least some effort to reasonably investigate, and the failure to produce the material was blamed on two employees in defendant’s HR department

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, FMLA claim

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

Allianz Ins. Co. v. Otero, 353 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendants maintained that there was more to a particular claim file than what was produced, that material was destroyed and that they were prejudiced, court denied defendants’ request for dismissal of all claims for negligent spoliation of evidence, finding that defendants had not established sufficient prejudice to warrant the extreme remedy sought

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Computer-generated claim file

Ferrero v. Henderson, 341 F.Supp.2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2004), opinion withdrawn in part on reconsideration, 2005 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005)

Key Insight: Although plaintiff was unable to make out FMLA claim, court sanctioned defendant under Rule 26(g)(3) for failure to timely produce dispositive payroll data, and ordered it to pay plaintiff the reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting FMLA claim, including but not limited to the time her attorney spent in pretrial preparation of the claim and in prosecuting the claim at trial

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, FMLA claim

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2005 WL 1398641 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied individual defendant’s motion for reconsideration of default judgment entered against her and other defendants for continued destruction of evidence and continued possession of plaintiff’s proprietary files; although there was no evidence that individual defendant personally engaged in wrongful acts, she was not insulated by simply leaving compliance with court orders to other defendant; further, individual had numerous opportunities to disavow knowledge of misconduct or detail what efforts she personally took to comply with court orders but never did so

Nature of Case: Misapproriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information in electronic form

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.