Motion for Sanctions – Page 74 – Electronic Discovery Law

E.E.O.C. v. Dillon Companies, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2011 WL 5834648 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendant?s failure to preserve highly relevant surveillance footage in bad faith (as evidenced by the loss of three copies of the tape and the deliberate recording over of the master tape) which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the court ordered an adverse inference instruction that the information would have been unfavorable to defendant and precluded defendant from offering the testimony of witnesses who viewed the footage prior to its loss as to what the footage depicted

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination/violation of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Original and three copies of relevant surveillance footage

Adams v. Allianceone, Inc., No. 08-CV-248-JAH (WVG), 2011 WL 2066617 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendants? production in PDF format where plaintiff?s failed to request a specific format of production; where PDF format was ?reasonably usable? in light of the problems with the native format; where Rule 34 advisory committee notes allow for the translation of electronic data to allow production in a reasonably usable format; where there was ?insufficient evidence? to suggest that the data was converted from its native format to hinder plaintiff?s search ability; and where defendant ended up producing the native data to plaintiff?s satisfaction after conferring

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Medeva Pharma Suisse A.G. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 2011 WL 310697 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Despite acknowledging defendant?s failure to implement a litigation hold until at least 5 years after it first anticipated litigation, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where the quantity and quality of the documents produced by defendant established that relevant information was ?diligently preserved? pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy and where plaintiff failed to establish that it had been prejudiced or that its ability to effectively prepare for trial had been impeded

Nature of Case: Hatch-Waxman patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Cacace v. Meyer Mktg. (Macau Commercial Offshore) Co., No. 06 Civ. 2938(KMK)(GAY), 2011 WL 1833338 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found duty to preserve arose upon defendant?s consultation with counsel regarding possible infringement on plaintiff?s patent but abated upon the parties? successful negotiation of licensing agreement; court found that defendant had no control and thus no obligation to preserve certain documents from an employee of a Hong-Kong based affiliate; regarding an email folder accidentally deleted following inadvertent ?exposure? to automated purge function, court declined to find the loss was a result of negligence and found that plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of information lost and declined to impose sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Lee v. Max Int., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to timely produce relevant evidence despite two court orders and then wrongly certified that the production was complete, the district court granted defendant?s motion to dismiss; on appeal, the circuit court affirmed the sanction (in a colorful opinion full of quotable quotes), holding that ?no one . . . should count on more than three chances to make good on a discovery obligation? and that the district court was within its considerable discretion in granting dismissal

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Tax records

Escamilla v. SMS Holdings Corp., No. 09-2120 ADM/JSM, 2011 WL 5025254 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court affirmed Magistrate Judge?s order requiring defendant to submit his computers for forensic examination, at his own expense, where defendant reinstalled an operating system less than two weeks after plaintiff filed a motion to compel and where, because of the loss of data, plaintiff was therefore prejudiced to an unknown extent?bad faith was not required for such an order; court affirmed order requiring corporate defendant to search hard drives of key employees, the image of a file and print server, and backup tapes dating back five years where the search was not overly broad and where defendant did not establish undue burden?despite its exorbitant estimate regarding backup tapes?in light of the large disparity between estimates from both parties, and where the court noted that much of the costs could have been avoided had SMS fulfilled its preservation duties and not converted to a less accessible format

Nature of Case: Employment litigation – sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mikhlyn v. Bove, No. 08-CV-3367 (ARR) (RER), 2011 WL 4529619 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2011); Mikylyn v. Bove, No. 08-CV-3367 (ARR) (RER), 2011 WL 4529613 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Upon reconsideration of prior order awarding sanctions against defendants, court found that additional evidence indicated culpability on the part of defense counsel that justified joint and several liability for sanctions; defendants? discovery violations included willful failure to produce certain documents and the destruction of other ESI; counsels? discovery failures included defense counsels? failure to adequately communicate with opposing counsel resulting in court intervention and failure to comply with court orders; as sanction, court ordered defendants and counsel to pay specifically delineated portions of plaintiffs? attorneys? fees and costs

Nature of Case: trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Atlas Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV 09-1113 WJ/KBM, 2011 WL 10563364 (D.N.M. Sept. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For Defendant?s and counsel?s discovery violations, including delayed production of relevant information, wrongful certification that discovery was complete, producing a 500-page document 35 times, and failing to conduct adequate searches of responsive information, court evaluated the Enrenhaus factors and imposed monetary sanctions to be paid by both Defendant and its counsel; court?s analysis was particularly critical of counsel who the court concluded had ?abdicated its responsibility to exercise oversight of the discovery process? and who the court found to be subject to sanctions pursuant to both Rule 37 and 26

Nature of Case: Claims arising from contract for providing worker?s compensation insurance and claims administration

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Viramontes v. U.S. Bancorp, 2011 WL 291077 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff?s assertion that her January 22, 2009 letter to human resources put defendants on notice of its duty to preserve where the letter complained about her manager but did not threaten litigation and instead suggested ?a non-litigious resolution,? where plaintiff testified that she had no intention of suing at the time she sent the letter, where plaintiff waited over ten months after sending the letter to bring the instant litigation, and where the manager?s testimony that he thought the letter could give rise to legal ramifications was not sufficient to trigger the corporation?s duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate, retaliation in violation of ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where detective preserved transcripts of internet chats by copying them into Word documents saved onto CD and verifying that they were identical to the original transcripts rather than preserving the original transcript on a department hard drive for purposes of saving space, defendant?s due process rights were not denied by destruction of the original transcript absent evidence that they would ?significantly contribute to his defense? and were lost as a result of bad faith; transcripts in Word documents were properly admitted in light of detective?s testimony that he participated in the chats and that the transcripts were accurate; transcripts did not violate best evidence rule absent evidence that originals were destroyed in bad faith; admission of transcripts did not violate rule of completeness; district court did not err in denying request for jury instruction on spoliation and destruction of evidence where there was no evidence that portions of chat were destroyed (because detective testified he saved conversations in their entirety) and no showing prejudice

Nature of Case: Crimnal charges related to attempt to coerce minor to engage in sezual activity

Electronic Data Involved: Chat transcripts

Tag:Motion for Sanctions