Motion for Sanctions – Page 80 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2010 WL 5395716 (6th Cir. Dec. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants produced a CD containing responsive ESI, including links to relevant graphic images which plaintiff viewed, but where the links eventually ?expired? and the images could no longer be seen and where defendants thereafter refused to produce printed copies of the previously produced advertisements, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where plaintiff had a duty to preserve relevant evidence in his possession but failed to take steps to preserve the images for future use

Nature of Case: Violations of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Expired links to relevant images

Nycomed U.S. Inc. v. Glenmark Generics, Ltd., 2010 WL 3173785 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For failing to abide by its good-faith discovery obligations by withholding from production, without justification, certain relevant ESI and ?willfully fail[ing] to search two important and obvious repositories for responsive ESI?, the court determined that ?substantial monetary fines, payable to Nycomed and to the Clerk of the Court, are appropriate sanctions, as they will adequately advance ?the prophylactic, punitive and remedial rationales? of discovery sanctions? and ordered Glenmark to pay $100,000 to Nycomed ?to cover a portion of its costs? and to pay an additional $25,000 to the Clerk of the Court

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 894 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, upon en camera review, the court determined that counsel could not support his claim of privilege as to 55 emails and therefore sanctioned counsel $5000, appellate court affirmed the order and found the lower court had exercised proper discretion ?because [counsel?s] claim that the 55 e-mails were privileged was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by any reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.?

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages for breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Potenza v. Gonzales, 2010 WL 890959 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? counsel admitted he had been in possession of the videotape of plaintiff?s interview with police following his arrest but that despite a diligent search he could not find it and could offer no explanation for why, court found spoliation sanctions were warranted, noting that the second circuit has recognized ?simple negligence? as a sufficiently culpable state of mind, and ordered an adverse inference; court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant should be sanctioned for failing to preserve the original despite plaintiff?s request to do so where plaintiff offered no evidence in support of their claim that defendant ever had control of the tape or played a role in its destruction

Nature of Case: Violation of Fourth Amendment right to be free from false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of police interview

In re Global Technovations, Inc., 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish plaintiffs? responsibility for destroying or losing any documents and failed to establish prejudice resulting from the loss, the court concluded that no sanctions were appropriate and denied defendants? renewed motion for sanctions; in so deciding, court declined to follow the standard for imposing an adverse inference previously set forth in Forest Labs, Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009) which held that under some circumstances, ordinary negligence is sufficient culpability to impose an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy adversary proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville, 2010 WL 3342211 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for default judgment or an adverse inference where, despite finding that the alleged spoliator had intentionally deleted data in violation of his statutory duty to preserve, the court was presented with no evidence of bad faith in the data?s destruction and nothing more than speculation as to the data?s relevance

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records subject to retention by statute

Hare v. Opryland Hospitality, LLC, 2010 WL 3719915 (D. Md. Sept. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged destruction of ?full and complete surveillance video? of the relevant incident but failed to establish that defendant had the burden to preserve any video aside from the portion produced or that any other relevant footage existed and was deleted and where plaintiff failed to establish the ?requisite state of mind?, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Oce N. Am., Inc. v. Brazeau, 2010 WL 5033310 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court rejected objections to the Magistrate Judge?s recommendation that plaintiff?s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied and, addressing plaintiff?s assertions that an evidentiary gap regarding defendant?s alleged misappropriation of information could be filled by adverse inference resulting from defendant?s failure to preserve instant messages, declined to impose such an inference where defendant mistakenly believe that the messages were automatically preserved and, upon learning otherwise, made changes to preserve going forward and thus plaintiffs were unable to show a culpable state of mind and where the alleged spoliation caused little harm in light of the availability of other evidence

Nature of Case: Breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Instant messages

Jeanes-Kemp, LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 2010 WL 3522028 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for protective order as to two inadvertently produced privileged documents where the production was inadvertent, where discovery was reviewed by three attorneys prior to production and thus efforts to prevent disclosure were reasonable, and where upon notice of disclosure, counsel took immediate steps to retrieve the documents; court declined to sanction defense counsel for threatening use of the inadvertently disclosed documents where plaintiff?s motion for protective order was granted and where defendants had not yet had the opportunity to use the documents as threatened

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced emails

Brown v. Kia Motors Corp., 2010 WL 135127 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for the destruction of plaintiff?s wife?s (a non-party) camera and memory card and plaintiff?s resulting inability to provide the ?digital files? created when the relevant photographs were taken where ?the camera and memory stick [did] not appear to have ever been within plaintiff?s control? and where ?it [did] not appear that the camera and memory stick were suppressed or withheld, but rather both were destroyed in an accident? and thus the elements necessary for an adverse inference were not met

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Digital files related to photographs alleged to be relevant to “the condition of the seatlbelt”

Tag:Motion for Sanctions