Motion for Sanctions – Page 77 – Electronic Discovery Law

Silverman v. United States, 2011 WL 65487 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy the form at issue was subject to retention until February 4, 2007, and where defendant provided notice of his claims on February 1, 2007, including his assertions of defendant?s negligence, court found destruction of the relevant form warranted an adverse inference establishing that defendant negligently loaded the trailer involved in the underlying accident

Nature of Case: Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

McCargo v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., No. 09-cv-02889-WYD-KMT, 2011 WL 1638992 (D. Colo. May 2, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where willful, bad faith spoliation of relevant video tapes despite a duty to preserve (triggered by an internal complaint of harassment and receipt of two preservation requests from plaintiff) resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, court ordered sanctions, including an adverse inference allowing (but not requiring) the jury to infer that certain tapes would have been harmful to defendant, an order precluding defendant from the introduction of certain evidence, and a prohibition on cross examination of plaintiff?s witnesses as to certain topics

Nature of Case: Racial discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Video

Vieste v. Hill Redwood Dev., No. C-09-0424 JSW (MSR), 2011 WL 2198257 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to pay sanctions equal to ?reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred [by Plaintiffs] in bringing this motion? where defendants were ordered to provide a detailed explanation of their preservation and collection processes but instead submitted declarations which failed to answer basic questions, answered others with minimal information, and relied on conclusory statements; court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, despite the court?s ?serious concerns? about a certain custodian?s preservation and collection efforts, spoliation was not established, and as to other specific evidence for which the evidence of spoliation was not clear, ordered that if it had not previously been produced, defendants would be barred from its use

Nature of Case: Brach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Flagg v. City of Detroit, No. 05-74253, 2011 WL 4634249 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2011); Flagg v. City of Detroit, No. 05-74253, 2011 WL 4634245 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For the City of Detroit?s bad faith spoliation of emails, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions but imposed a permissive adverse inference; for the City?s and its attorneys? ?bad faith disregard of their discovery obligations and the orders of this Court? which led to the destruction of evidence (including failing to disseminate a legal hold notice and Corporation Counsel?s ?utter delinquen[ce] in his duty to see that his clients complied with Judge Rosen?s orders?), the court ordered the city and Corporation Counsel to split plaintiffs? reasonable fees and costs; in its analysis related to an adverse inference, the court adopted the analysis of Forest Labs. Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009), which held that an adverse inference may be appropriate in some cases involving the negligent destruction of evidence (as opposed to bad faith, which some courts have held is necessary)

Nature of Case: Minor son of murder victim alleged that defendants conducted lax investigation and deliberately ignored or actively concealed material evidence

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Xyience, Inc. v. Zyen, LLC (In re Xyience), Ch. 11 Case No. BK-S-08-10474-MKN, Adv. No. 09-1402-MKN, 2011 WL 5239666 (Bankr. D. Nev. Oct. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For ?discovery misconduct? including failing to issue a litigation hold; admitted deletion of documents; and failure to promptly search certain repositories for responsive information, including a computer utilized by an individual defendant at an unrelated corporation for which he was an officer (but which he used for matters unrelated to that corporation, including for correspondence related to the underlying lawsuits) and the computer of the same individual?s secretary (albeit at yet a third company which was also a defendant), the court ordered monetary sanctions ?to reimburse Plaintiff?s expenses costs, and reasonable attorney?s fees?

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Alexander v. Archuleta County, 2010 WL 363390 (D. Colo. Jan. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to timely produce relevant communications despite a court order and offered no explanation for the delay and where the court determined the delayed production resulted in prejudice to the defendants, that the prejudice could not be cured by additional discovery, and that plaintiff?s discovery conduct was ?in bad faith and willful?, court ordered two affidavits in support of plaintiff?s response to summary judgment stricken and prohibited plaintiff from introducing those witnesses? testimony at trial and for plaintiff to pay defendant?s reasonable attorney?s fees and expenses

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Moore v. Napolitano, 723 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.D.C. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court upheld sanction precluding defendant from presenting evidence of non-discriminatory reasons for non-promotion upon a prima facie showing of disparate treatment where defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search for responsive paper documents, despite a court order to do so, including providing ?ambiguous and deficient? search instructions to employees; failing to follow up when employees failed to uncover responsive information; and failing to credibly explain defendant?s search efforts, and where the Magistrate Judge properly concluded the sanction was proportional to the offense(s)

Nature of Case: Putative class action for discriminatory non-promotion

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 3522798 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the defendant was warned that failure to uphold discovery obligations would result in severe sanctions and where, with the help of a special master, it was determined that defendant ?repeatedly and knowingly? concealed information from the court and acted in bad faith to prevent the discovery of relevant information, including interfering with counsel?s efforts to identify responsive information, the court ordered dispositive sanctions and found that an agency relationship existed as a matter of law between defendant and the bus company involved in the fatal accident that was the basis for plaintiffs? claims

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fatal bus accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

VFI Assoc., LLC v. Lobo Mach. Corp., 2010 WL 4716215 (W.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For defendant?s knowing refusal to produce responsive data and bad faith alteration of data in an effort to hide relevant evidence, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from offering any “defense, evidence, or argument” as to several disputed issues and indicated it willingness to ?take under advisement? additional sanctions, including monetary sanctions, a finding of contempt of court, and a possible adverse inference instruction [on Nov. 22, 2010, a second opinion was issued, identical to the first except that the footnote regarding the court’s consideration of future sanctions discussed only an adverse inference instruction and did not include mention of a finding of contempt or monetary sanctions, 2010 WL 4868110]

Nature of Case: Allegations that business manager accepted kickbacks from equipment supplier

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Habtegiorgis v. OIC of Washington, 2010 WL 2232142 (E.D. Wash. June 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding plaintiff?s requests ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,? court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce certain ESI and to allow plaintiffs to search defendant?s server and network using the terms of plaintiff?s choosing and ordered that defendant provide information regarding the creation of backup disks and other evidence; court granted plaintiff?s motion for the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion for Sanctions