Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 1098919 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2004)
2
Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2004 WL 417193 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004)
3
GTFM, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2000 WL 335558 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2000)
4
MasterCard Int’l v. Moulton, 2004 WL 1393992 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2004)
5
Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004)
6
Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F.Supp.2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004) (“Mosaid IV”)
7
Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Caruth, 786 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. App. 1990)
8
Hahn v. Minn. Beef Ind., 2002 WL 32667146 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2002)
9
Mathias v. Jacobs, 197 F.R.D. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), vacated, 167 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
10
Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004), amending 341 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 (2004)

Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 1098919 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2004)

Key Insight: Sanctions not warranted where plaintiffs made ?tenuous allegation? without any specific evidentiary support that defendants had implemented a new email document retention policy after litigation was commenced and that potentially relative emails may have been destroyed pursuant to the policy

Nature of Case: Claimed violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2004 WL 417193 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2004)

Key Insight: Motion for sanctions for destruction of email denied since plaintiff failed to follow procedure set forth in court’s prior order which would have required plaintiff to file a petition seeking the appointment of a computer forensics expert, and instead waited over seven months to bring the issue to the court in the form of a motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

GTFM, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2000 WL 335558 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2000)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs’ motion for on-site inspection of computer records granted and defendant ordered to pay all plaintiffs’ expenses and legal fees unnecessarily expended due to defendant’s failure to make an accurate disclosure of its computer capabilities in December 1998

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized information re purchase of goods bearing plaintiffs’ trademarks

MasterCard Int’l v. Moulton, 2004 WL 1393992 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2004)

Key Insight: Finding no bad faith in defendant’s failure to preserve email since defendants simply persevered in their normal document retention practices, court nonetheless ruled that plaintiff would be allowed to prove the facts reflecting the non-retention of email and argue to the trier of fact that this destruction of evidence, in addition to other proof offered at trial, warranted certain inferences

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004)

Key Insight: Adverse inference jury instruction against defendant for its prelitigation destruction of tape-recorded voice radio communications between train crew and dispatchers on date of collision was proper, but refusal to permit testimony offered by defendant to rebut the adverse inference was abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Tape-recorded voice radio communications

Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F.Supp.2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004) (“Mosaid IV”)

Key Insight: Finding defendant’s actions went “far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct that led to the nonproduction of all technical e-mails,” district court affirmed the spoliation inference jury instruction and monetary sanctions imposed by magistrate

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Caruth, 786 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. App. 1990)

Key Insight: Entry of default judgment on issue of liability and imposition of other discovery sanctions against insurer for failure to produce computer data and other discovery abuses was not an abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Hahn v. Minn. Beef Ind., 2002 WL 32667146 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2002)

Key Insight: Where, after months of discovery disputes, reports upon which defendant urged plaintiff to rely in lieu of full database turned out to be inaccurate, court denied plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment for discovery abuse and instead postponed trial so that defendant could produce accurate information; however, court imposed monetary sanctions against defendant representing plaintiff’s legal and expert fees for time spent working with inaccurate data

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Database, reports, electronic data

Mathias v. Jacobs, 197 F.R.D. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), vacated, 167 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s failure to preserve computer printouts and telephone lists loaded onto Palm Pilot did not warrant an adverse inference instruction, but did warrant monetary sanctions of $28,271.75 to be paid by party (not his attorney) to compensate the victim for attorneys’ fees and expenses arising both from additional discovery required to locate equivalent information by alternative means and from the motion practice necessitated by the spoliation

Nature of Case: Action seeking monetary damages and specific performance of stock option agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy material loaded onto Palm Pilot

Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004), amending 341 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 813 (2004)

Key Insight: Defendant’s subpoena to ISP of plaintiff, which sought all copies of all email sent or received by anyone at plaintiff with no limitation as to time or scope, was “massively overbroad,” “patently unlawful,” and “transparently and egregiously” violated federal rules; besides warranting sanctions in underlying suit, subpoena was grounds for separate action by employees of plaintiff against defendant for violation of federal Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and state law

Nature of Case: Violation of federal electronic privacy and computer fraud statutes

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored by Internet Service Provider

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.