Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)
2
Soileau v. Smith?s True Value & Rental, 40 So.3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2010)
3
Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)
4
Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)
5
HR Tech., Inc. v. Imura Int. U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 4792388 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010)
6
Melendres v. Arpaio, 2010 WL 582189 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2010) (Unpublished)
7
MLM Props., LLC v. Country Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1948609 (D. Or. May 7, 2010)
8
Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010)
9
Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2010 WL 3895764 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)
10
CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse North, Inc., 2010 WL 3327876 (N.D. Ill Aug. 23, 2010)

Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for a myriad of alleged violations, including failure to preserve emails and failure to adequately search for responsive ESI, where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of such violations and where the court found defendant?s search was reasonable; court ordered defendant to show cause why it failed to produce emails from certain supervisors in response to the court?s prior order where plaintiff offered evidence that such emails existed

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Soileau v. Smith?s True Value & Rental, 40 So.3d 379 (La. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s order finding defendants in contempt, ordering their immediate production of outstanding discovery and establishing facts sufficient to satisfy 2 of the 4 elements of plaintiff?s liability claim where defendants failed to timely produce relevant discovery in violation of the trial court?s order and provided no satisfactory explanation for such failure, and where the trial court determined that defendants were ?hiding? discoverable information

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from alleged product defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)

Key Insight: On appeal from the trial court?s order of dismissal, where the evidence indicated that plaintiff repeatedly utilized scrubbing software to delete data subject to preservation and which the court had ordered the plaintiff to produce and likely discarded other relevant external drives, the appellate court considered the six factors contemplated by the trial court when determining the proper sanction, namely, ?surprise, prejudice, the type of evidence at issue, diligence, timeliness of objection, and good faith? and affirmed the sanction upon finding ?absolutely no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion?

Nature of Case: Defamation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drives, external drives

Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged spoliation of surveillance video where in the case of an incident the surveillance video was to be copied from the hard drive it was stored on to a CD, but where there was insufficient evidence that such a CD was ever made or existed, and where plaintiff failed to contact defendant regarding her lawsuit until 5 months had passed – a period of time far longer than the video would have been preserved on the hard drive in the usual course of business

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

HR Tech., Inc. v. Imura Int. U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 4792388 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was required to produce its patent counsel?s relevant files and where its counsel retained hard copies of relevant emails but admitted to the destruction of electronic copies in accordance with the firm?s email policy, despite knowledge of the relevant dispute between plaintiff and defendant, the court denied a motion for sanctions where there was no evidence of bad faith in the destruction (because counsel acted pursuant to a ?general policy applying to all legal matters?) and where, because hard copies were preserved, there was no showing of prejudice to defendants

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Melendres v. Arpaio, 2010 WL 582189 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2010) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s failure to communicate plaintiff?s preservation request and failure to implement a litigation hold resulted in the destruction of data, court ordered adverse inference related to the destruction of a particular category of evidence but delayed the imposition of sanctions for the destruction of email where efforts to retrieve those emails from backup systems were ongoing and ordered defendant to submit an explanation of their retrieval efforts with specific topics to be addressed

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hardcopy evidence

MLM Props., LLC v. Country Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1948609 (D. Or. May 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the court ordered plaintiffs to pay defendant?s expenses and fees related to a motion for sanctions arising from plaintiff?s delayed production of documents previously characterized as unrecoverable due to a damaged backup tape, court denied motion for additional sanctions where plaintiffs argued no prejudice resulted from the delay and where the court found no evidence to justify sanctions beyond those already imposed

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract and intentional inter-ference with economic relationships

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s ?workaday use? of the laptop at issue unknowingly resulted in the destruction of usable data and where the laptop did not belong to the plaintiff, was later returned to its third-party owner, and was then wiped clean, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions against plaintiff upon finding that there was insufficient evidence of plaintiff?s control of the laptop or that he knew the laptop would be wiped and, more importantly, where the court found that plaintiff?s destruction of data by using the laptop occurred before he knew it would have such a result

Nature of Case: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop

Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2010 WL 3895764 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)

Key Insight: Where forensic investigation of plaintiff?s home computer revealed use of CCleaner only days before the investigation was scheduled, court denied motion for sanctions where the evidence indicated it was unlikely that relevant documents were destroyed and where in light of plaintiff?s denial that she ran or directed someone else to run CCleaner, there was not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the court?s Forensics Order; court denied sanctions despite existence of thousands of ?non-standard? files containing keyword hits which indicated files that had been deleted where plaintiff presented evidence that such files could have been created in the normal use of the computer and where the relevance of the files could not be established for purposes of a spoliation analysis; court denied sanctions for plaintiff?s deletion of emails from her work account where the emails were saved to her personal computer and produced and where defendant?s protests that more emails should have been produced were insufficient to establish intentional spoliation; for plaintiff?s admitted and intentional destruction of audio tapes, the court imposed a $1500 monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

CE Design Ltd. v. Cy?s Crabhouse North, Inc., 2010 WL 3327876 (N.D. Ill Aug. 23, 2010)

Key Insight: Court vacated prior order designating contents of relevant hard drive confidential where good cause was not established by the proffered reasons for the designation; addressing defendant?s motion to disqualify plaintiff?s counsel and bar its expert for failure to timely supplement discovery by producing a relevant hard drive, the court ruled that defendant failed to offer new information that would justify such a sanction (because this issue was previously considered) where the newly-discovered documents (on the late-produced hard drive) did not change the court?s analysis as to numerosity and certification of the class and where the expert was given the opportunity to supplement his report

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

 

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