Motion for Sanctions – Page 85 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Actionlink, LLC v. Sorgenfrei, 2010 WL 395243 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where issues of material fact existed as to the willfulness of defendant?s destruction of potentially relevant ESI and as to whether such destruction ?disrupted? plaintiff?s case, court denied defendant?s motion for summary judgment as to its claim of spoliation and denied plaintiff?s request for an adverse inference as to claims 1 through 4, but indicated its willingness to entertain a motion for an appropriate jury instruction at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of confidentiality agreement and related claims, independant cause of action for spoliation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Clark v. Randalls Food, 317 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for sanctions where, despite defendant?s failure to preserve all relevant portions of a surveillance video tape, the court found the tape would not have revealed information necessary to establish defendant?s knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition at issue and thus, there was no prejudice to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Booker v. Mass. Dept. of Public Health, 612 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in failing to issue an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to establish the evidentiary foundation for such an instruction, namely that the party accused of spoliation was 1) aware of the pending claim, and 2) aware of the document?s relevance to that claim

Nature of Case: Retaliation, torotuous interference with contractual employment relations

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted that information regarding potential class members had been deleted pursuant to its regular information management practice and indicated that some (but not all) information could be retrieved from backup tapes, the court acknowledged defendant?s duty to preserve but reasoned the culpability for such deletions was ?somewhat lessened? because no one had requested that defendant alter is retention policies and because the deletions occurred ?pursuant to the regular operation? of those policies and determined that no conclusions could be reached on the record provided but that ?the court may consider imposing a remedy in any findings regarding the fairness of settlement?

Nature of Case: Class action challenging certain fees assessed on American Express-issued gift cards

Electronic Data Involved: Customer-identifying information

County of Erie v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to take steps to preserve potentially relevant documents until approximately three and one half years after the lawsuit was initiated and was thus grossly negligent, the court granted an adverse inference and monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s reasonable fess and costs of making the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Suit alleging that drug companies had inflated average wholesale price for Medicaid drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion for Sanctions