Motion for Sanctions – Page 94 – Electronic Discovery Law

Superior Prod. P?ship d/b/a PBSI v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co, Ltd, 2009 WL 690603 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Acknowledging the reasonableness of plaintiff?s suspicion that information may have been lost in light of defendants? failure to immediately institute a litigation hold and in light of their admitted failure to immediately search all potentially relevant sources of responsive material, court nonetheless denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where plaintiff failed to present evidence that any relevant information had actually been lost or destroyed as a result of defendants? failures and in light of defendants? remedial efforts, including conducting additional searches and notifying employees of the litigation hold

Nature of Case: Predatory pricing

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P., 767 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated defendant wiped her computer?s hard drive days before producing it for inspection but where evidence also indicated that the wiping occurred prior to receipt of the subpoena seeking the computer?s production, appellate court acknowledged a reasonable basis to suspect intentional spoliation but found that there was not sufficiently compelling evidence to require such a finding and thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Invasion of privacy

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Global Ampersand, LLC v. Crown Eng?g & Constr., Inc. 2009 WL 2982901 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel upon finding that defendant ?did not timely comply with its discovery obligations? including failing to timely produce a hard drive, a laptop computer, and other relevant documents and failing to produce a privilege log, among other things, and ordered defendant to produce all relevant ESI and to provide additional information regarding the location and collection of additional ESI, including the identification of sources no longer available; court deferred ruling on alleged spoliation but awarded plaintiff $17,375.00 in attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Jneid v. Tripole Corp., 2009 WL 4882654 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial upon finding that defendant ?did not act intentionally? when if failed to produce certain documents before trial and that the evidentiary and issue sanctions imposed, including preclusion of use of certain documents, preclusion from introducing certain evidence, preclusion of certain arguments, and an adverse jury instruction, were ?more severe than necessary? where an order for defendant to pay all costs incurred by the completed trial (as suggested by defendant) was sufficient to rectify the prejudice to the plaintiff; on remand, court ordered trial court to determine the cost incurred by plaintiffs and cross-complainant in connection with trial and the costs incurred because of the late production of documents and for defendant to pay such costs

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contracts

Electronic Data Involved: Computer embedded information

In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 185649 (Bankr. D. Haw. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Although expert fees and expenses were not taxable as costs under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1920, court ruled that, since most if not all of the work performed by Hawaiian Airlines’ computer forensics expert was directly attributable to Mesa’s spoliation of evidence (which was subject of October 30, 2007 decision imposing certain evidentiary sanctions against Mesa), the expert’s fees and expenses of approximately $80,000 would be awarded as an additional spoliation sanction

Nature of Case: Airline undergoing reorganization alleged that prospective investor (Mesa) breached confidentiality agreement and misused confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Confidential information stored on secure website

Monson v. Albertson’s Inc., 2008 WL 1925134 (D. Utah Apr. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Resolving a number of discovery issues, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails and other stored electronic data concerning plaintiff, stating: ?Plaintiff’s bald assertion that there must be more e-mails than the 100 already produced is not persuasive to the court.?

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

In re Rosenthal, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that District Attorney?s admitted deletion of more than 2,500 emails sought by subpoena constituted ?unexcused, egregious conduct,? court found him in contempt of court and imposed $18,900 in sanctions (representing attorneys? fees); court further found that actions of attorney representing DA in the proceedings were ?unprincipled and dilatory, at best, constituting a deliberate indifference to the Court’s Orders and subpoena,? held him in contempt of court, and ordered that $5,000 of the $18,900 in sanctions awarded against DA was jointly and severally awarded against his attorney

Nature of Case: Civil rights suit against Harris County, Texas, the Harris County Sheriff and several Harris County deputies

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails of the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas

Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a 30(b)(6) deponent with sufficient knowledge of designated topics and monetary sanctions against defendant where defendants? designated deponent was unable to answer ?the most basic questions? regarding defendants? response to discovery including what computers were searched for documents, what backup tapes or other media was searched, and what backup media was utilized by the company; court stated that deponent had obligation to educate self on designated issues prior to deposition

Nature of Case: Statutory Action arising from 18 U.S.C. ? 2511 (Wiretapping)

Electronic Data Involved: Testimony from 30(b)(6) deponent regarding discovery responses

Cumberland Truck Equip. Co. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 2008 WL 5111894 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs admitted to deletion of electronic data after failing to disable auto-delete function but where deletion was not intentional and where defendants failed to show more than a suspicion of prejudice, court declined to issue order for plaintiffs to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed; court issued warning to plaintiffs that any future loss of data, whether negligent or otherwise, was ?not acceptable? and ordered measures taken against further deletion

Nature of Case: Price fixing

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Leist v. GHG Corp., 2008 WL 183330 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff alleged that former supervisor wrote memos concerning plaintiff?s alleged deficiencies after plaintiff complained about co-employee?s racist comments, that she never saw the memos and did not sign them as was normal practice with disciplinary memos, and defendant had not preserved hard drive of supervisor?s computer, court did not grant adverse inference as to contents of hard drive but found a material question of fact as to plaintiff?s retaliation claim, and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on retaliation claim

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, metadata

Tag:Motion for Sanctions