Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
Weaver v. Zenimax Media, Inc., 2004 WL 2755852 (Md. Cir. Ct. Sept. 3, 2004)
2
Cobell v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 324 (D.D.C. 2002)
3
Invision Media Communications, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2004 WL 396037 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2004)
4
Nutrition Mgmt. v. Harborside Healthcare Corp., 2004 WL 887401 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2004)
5
William T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984)
6
Comm’r of Labor v Ward, 580 S.E.2d 432 (Table, Text in WESTLAW) 2003 WL 21267941 (N.C.Ct. App. 2003)
7
Itzenson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1507422 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2000)
8
Oved & Assocs. Const. Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 2003 WL 23028903 (Cal. App. Dec. 30, 2003) (Unpublished)
9
Williams v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 360, 2002 WL 1477618 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002)
10
R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd., 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)

Weaver v. Zenimax Media, Inc., 2004 WL 2755852 (Md. Cir. Ct. Sept. 3, 2004)

Key Insight: Exercising its inherent authority to safeguard the integrity of its judicial process, court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions and dismissed the complaint due to plaintiff’s discovery abuses and “civil vigilantism” which began during the course of his employment and prior to filing suit

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Illicit incursions into the offices, computers, and email accounts of executives of defendant

Cobell v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 324 (D.D.C. 2002)

Key Insight: Government’s motion for “protective order clarifying that it may produce email in response to discovery requests by producing from paper records of email messages rather than from backup tapes and may overwrite backup tapes in accordance with Departmental directives” denied as inappropriate given history of dispute; plaintiffs awarded attorneys’ fees and costs associated with motion

Nature of Case: Suit against the government alleging mismanagement of Indian trust funds

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Invision Media Communications, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2004 WL 396037 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2004)

Key Insight: Plaintiff?s discovery misconduct, including disregard of discovery obligations, misleading statements regarding existence and location of evidence and failure to make reasonable inquiries, warranted sanctions in the form of costs and reasonable attorneys? fees expended by defendant in connection with sanctions motion and certain discovery events

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard drives

Nutrition Mgmt. v. Harborside Healthcare Corp., 2004 WL 887401 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude testimony, which was based on speculation that email had been destroyed, since defendants produced sworn testimony that all relevant emails were produced, and legitimate reason for erasing some emails “was simply a function of cleaning the junk mail and other clutter from the computer software and disk storage space”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

William T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984)

Key Insight: Defendant’s discovery abuse and destruction of evidence warranted monetary sanctions and default judgment

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Sales and inventory data

Comm’r of Labor v Ward, 580 S.E.2d 432 (Table, Text in WESTLAW) 2003 WL 21267941 (N.C.Ct. App. 2003)

Key Insight: Where defendants intentionally and willfully refused to comply with court’s discovery orders regarding electronically stored information, sanctions in form of striking defendants’ answer, preventing them from defending against plaintiff’s claims, and granting default judgment was not an abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Wage and Hour Act violations

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Itzenson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1507422 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2000)

Key Insight: Discovery deadline extended and defendant ordered to “use every practicable means” to identify requested claims files; if defendant truly cannot segregate the claim files, defendant would be directed to make available a representative with requisite knowledge and skill to assist plaintiff’s representative in reviewing and identifying as promptly as possible each unsegregated file which met plaintiff’s criteria

Nature of Case: ERISA action to recover death benefits under employee benefit plan

Electronic Data Involved: Database re insurance claims

Oved & Assocs. Const. Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court, 2003 WL 23028903 (Cal. App. Dec. 30, 2003) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Petition for writ of mandate denied; based on evidence that a business computer was used for accounting and nothing else, and that there was a risk the hard drive might be purged, trial court acted properly when it ordered the petitioner to produce the computer’s hard drive

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of funds

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Williams v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 360, 2002 WL 1477618 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002)

Key Insight: Defendant’s production of email five days before trial was to begin did not warrant sanctions, where emails were not produced previously because defendant had changed email systems (thus rendering all previous emails irretrievable) and where email was produced as soon as it was discovered during trial prep of witness; discovery deadline extended

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination (age discrimination)

Electronic Data Involved: Email

R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd., 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)

Key Insight: Trial court properly imposed terminating sanctions against plaintiff for egregious discovery abuses, including the deletion of files from hard drives after plaintiff had stipulated that computers and diskettes would not be operated or touched until defendants’ computer expert could examine them

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, computer files

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.