Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, 2008 WL 623027 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2008)
2
St. Tammany Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2008 WL 728948 (E.D. La. Mar. 17, 2008)
3
Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2008 WL 4786621 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008) (Not for Citation)
4
U.S. v. Latham, 2008 WL 5146526 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2008)
5
U.S. v. Bunty, 2008 WL 2371211, (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)
6
Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008)
7
Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 2007 WL 5155945 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2008)
8
Law Offices of Ben C. Martin LLP v. Sweet, 2008 WL 2045477 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2008)
9
Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 4816620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)
10
Fox v. Riverdeep, Inc., 2008 WL 5244297 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2008)

Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, 2008 WL 623027 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Because outright dismissal was too severe a sanction for spoliation in view of minimal culpability of Sun Trust and slight potential for abuse, court would give jury adverse inference instruction instead

Nature of Case: FMLA claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

St. Tammany Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2008 WL 728948 (E.D. La. Mar. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff explained that earlier drafts of expert?s report were not ?destroyed,? but that expert merely saved different ?iterations? of report within same file on his computer until report was complete, and where there was no indication that drafts of report were edited or ?ghost-written? to support a predetermined outcome, court denied defense motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Prior drafts of expert’s report

Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2008 WL 4786621 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008) (Not for Citation)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce website information because the information was maintained by and in the custody of a third party internet service provider, and because defendant could not access the materials because its account had expired, court acknowledged general rule that ?production is not ordered unless the responding party has exclusive control of the documents? and plaintiff?s failure to subpoena third party directly but nonetheless ordered defendants to ?take all necessary steps to obtain the requested documents? from third party and for the parties to split the cost

Nature of Case: Misappropriate of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Website

U.S. v. Latham, 2008 WL 5146526 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to preserve exculpatory evidence where defendant alleged government spoliation of potentially exculpatory hard drives but failed to show that the unavailable evidence possessed exculpatory value that was apparent prior to destruction and that he could not obtain comparable evidence by other means and where defendant failed to adequately support an inference that evidence was destroyed in bad faith

Nature of Case: Recieving and transporting child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to preserve DVR footage by not recording it on to a VHS tape before the footage was overwritten on the DVR hard drive, district court modified magistrate judge’s order, finding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s request for adverse inference charge for defendants’ failure to preserve evidence

Nature of Case: Prisoner asserted ? 1983 action against various prison defendants

Electronic Data Involved: Digital video recording showing altercation between prisoner and prison staff

Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 2007 WL 5155945 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2008)

Key Insight: Ruling on a number of discovery issues, court found that defendant?s production of electronic documents was proper, notwithstanding fact that production included numerous non-working files as well as unresponsive and offensive content; court noted that inappropriate and inoperable files represented small percentage of total documents produced, that defendant appeared to have been diligent in attempting to minimize such problems, and that ?it is likely that all electronic document production carries some possibility of technical difficulties?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic files

Law Offices of Ben C. Martin LLP v. Sweet, 2008 WL 2045477 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2008)

Key Insight: Where neutral expert could not testify, based on forensic search of Sweet?s computer, that Sweet or someone at his direction had intentionally destroyed subject email, and it appeared that most of expert?s report went beyond scope of his duties as neutral expert and was irrelevant to any issues in case, magistrate judge recommended that plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions be denied and that certain portions of expert?s report be stricken; Report and Recommendation adopted by district court, 2008 WL 2130574 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2008)

Nature of Case: Dispute over fee owed to Martin and his firm as a result of settlement and verdict in medical malpractice case

Electronic Data Involved: Email sent by Martin via his Blackberry to Sweet confirming the terms of fee arrangement

Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 4816620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for contempt sanctions for discovery abuse denied where defendant indicated no documents responsive to subpoena existed, where search for documents entailed ?paper files, electronic files, hard drives, archives, computers, etc.?, where search was performed in presence of defendant?s paralegal and where defendant hired a contractor to search for archived emails but still found nothing; court found plaintiff?s reliance on ?passing statement? regarding email communication at deposition ?insufficient to prove that the purported emails ever existed?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Fox v. Riverdeep, Inc., 2008 WL 5244297 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant breached its duty to preserve evidence by taking ?no steps whatsoever to preserve emails or documents? following receipt of a cease and desist letter, court ordered adverse inference instruction that missing documents were unfavorable to defendants but declined to impose requested sanction of default judgment absent a showing of bad faith

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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