|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Sanctions (Continued)
Krumwiede v. Brighton Associates, L.L.C., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31669 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2006).
The court imposed default judgment for the defendant, which was entered as a sanction against the defendant's former Director of Business Development, who was found to have continuously destroyed and altered computer files after he learned of the claims against him.
Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27117 (D. N.J. May 5, 2006).
Defendant claimed that producing responsive email, including that which was stored in backup systems, would result in a cost of "millions of dollars and take months to complete", however, the court affirmed the magistrate's orders. The court determined that the defendant's must produce email of employees on a predetermine schedule and provide weekly reports to the court describing the restoration process of the backup tapes and other steps taken to comply with discovery. The court also affirmed sanctions and decided to review any privileged documents in camera to determine their status under the crime-fraud exception.
Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9212 (11th Cir. Apr. 13, 2006).
The court of appeals found that the district court was within its discretion for imposing sanctions against the defendant for violating discovery; however, the court also found that the district court did not provide a rationale for imposing sanctions and had violated the defendant's 5th Amendment due process rights by imposing a fine and striking defendant's affirmative defensives for failing to comply with production requirements.
In re CV Therapeutics, Inc., Securities Litigation, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38909 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2006).
The plaintiffs requested sanctions against the defendants for failing to produce backup tapes, however, the court denied this motion, as the plaintiffs did not show that defendants had intentionally hid the existence of the backup tapes. The court did order the defendants to catalog the backup tapes at their own expense and provide the plaintiffs with requested documents.
Automotive Finance Corp. v. Bissell, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21421 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 30, 2006).
The court denied the defendant's motion for sanctions against the plaintiff, as the defendant was referring to plaintiff's failure to provide email and other documents that they contended were privileged.
Select Medical Corp. v. Hardaway, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15326 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006).
In this case alleging violation of a non-compete agreement, plaintiff moved for an adverse inference and sanctions against defendant due to defendant's deletion of company files from his home computer. However, the court found that the defendant had deleted these files in an attempt to comply with the non-compete agreement and did not impose sanctions.
McDowell v. Gov't of the District of Columbia, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4756 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2006).
The court found that, although the District of Columbia delayed the process of discovery by three years, a default judgment was not warranted as a sanction, as the government did not act in bad faith. The court did rule that it would recommend an adverse inference jury instruction if the government did not meet a new deadline for document production
Ambix International, Inc. v. Sav-Rx, L.L.C., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6162 (D. Neb. Jan. 30, 2006).
A motion to compel discovery was set forth, although the information the party sought was not likely to lead to discovery of relevant evidence. The court did not order the party to pay opposing counsel's fees and costs associated with responding to the motion to compel, as the court ruled that such sanctions were not warranted due to the party's justification in asserting its position, although their position was not
successful.
Super Group Packaging & Distribution Corp. v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3382 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2006).
Plaintiff was awarded attorney's fees and costs associated with filing a motion to compel, as well as seeking compliance with a court order for production, although defendant asserted that they had produced documents when ordered to do so.
DaimlerChrysler Motors v. Bill Davis Racing, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38162 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2005).
Although it was determined that failing to suspend normal procedures for document destruction was negligent and not done purposefully, the magistrate recommended that sanctions, including and adverse inference jury instruction and attorney's fees, be imposed.
Channel Components, Inc. v. America II Electronics, Inc., 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20067 (Fla. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2005).
The court held that the trial court was within its discretion by ordering a penalty of $2,500 per day for thirty days for civil contempt for not complying with a court order, as it was found that defendant did not institute a "purge" provision that would have allowed them to provide the required discovery and avoid the fine.
In re Old Banc One Shareholders Securities Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32154 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2005).
A party failed to preserve documents as they did not quickly institute a document retention policy and did not inform its employees of such a policy, resulting in the party being responsible for spoliation and being unable to produce responsive documents. The court imposed a sanction in which the party was not permitted to cross-examine the opposing sides financial expert and the jury was informed of the reason the cross-examination was not allowed to occur.
Jinks-Umstead v. England, "Jinks III", 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34547 (D.D.C. Dec. 7, 2005).
Plaintiff claimed in a Title VII Civil Rights action that the Navy discriminated and retaliated against her by removing her supervisory status. After plaintiff presented her case at trial, the Navy produced approximately 1,400 pages reports used to ascertain requirements for support staff that they had previously claimed they no longer had in their possession. Due to this, the court granted plaintiff with a new trial, however, due to the severity of the sanction and the Navy's good faith discovery efforts after the sanction, the court did not give the jury and adverse inference instruction or provide the jury with information pertaining to the fact that it was a retrial.
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Davis, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31065 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2005).
After defendant was found to have wiped his computer hard drive after being notified that he was suspected to have propagated and unauthorized copy of a film, an adverse inference jury instruction was warranted. However, neither party had requested a jury trial and an adverse inference was not appropriate on a motion for summary judgment, although the court held that it would take the willful destruction of evidence into account at the time of trial.
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22447 (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 2005).
It was determined that the district court was wrong for providing a discovery sanction by dismissing plaintiff's Lanham Act claim as the court did not set conclusions for information that would need to be evaluated before dismissing claims as a sanction.
Tracy v. Financial Insurance Management Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38323 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 23, 2005).
The court ordered defendant to pay for depositions both by phone and in person after producing responsive email on the last day the plaintiff was conducting depositions of out of state individuals.
Heng Chan v. Triple 8 Palace, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16520 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2005).
Plaintiffs were awarded attorney fees and costs, as well as an adverse inference jury instruction, after defendant was found to have destroyed relevant evidence after litigation had begun.
Wiedmann v. Bradford Group, Inc., 2005 Mass. LEXIS 418 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Jul. 21, 2005).
Defendant failed to retain required employment records for two years and was therefore barred from making challenges regarding alleged commission owed to plaintiff based on an oral contract.
E & J Gallo Winery v. EnCana Energy Services Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40143 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2005).
After attempting to delay a third-party deposition until after mediation occurred, the magistrate judge ordered the law firm to pay $102,000 in sanctions and also found that the law firm's motion for widespread electronic discovery was simply a tactic to distract plaintiff.
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. v. Coleman (Parent) Holdings Inc., No. CA4D05-2606, Fla. Ct. App., 4th Dist. (Appeal filed, Jun. 28, 2005).
The court determined that sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction and a partial default judgment, were warranted due to Morgan Stanley's electronic discovery abuses, resulting in a $1.5 billion judgment, which Morgan Stanley appealed.
Advantacare Health Partners v. Access IV, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12794 (N.D.Ca., June 14, 2005).
The court denied a motion for reconsideration of a default judgment, which was imposed upon defendants due to their repeated electronic discovery abuses.
Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 2005 Extra LEXIS 94 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 23, 2005).
The court determined that sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction and a partial default judgment, were warranted due to the fact that Morgan Stanley, "deliberately and contumaciously violated numerous discovery orders." The jury will hear a statement describing the manner in which defendant managed electronic discovery and the court's findings regarding the manner in which misconduct occurred.
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, "Zubulake VI", 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4085 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2005).
In Zubulake V, an adverse jury instruction sanction was imposed on UBS Warburg due to their willful destruction of potentially relevant email messages. Motions in limine were made in preparation for trial in Zubulake VI and the court ruled that:
- The jury would not be provided with the court's five previous discovery opinions as it would unfairly prejudice UBS
- Plaintiff would not be permitted to introduce correspondence relating to the discovery disputes unless UBS introduced evidence first that showcased their failure to produce information
- Plaintiff would not be permitted to call to the stand defense counsel to question them regarding email and backup tape preservation
Clark Construction Group, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13808
(W.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2005).
The city failed to institute a document preservation procedure, resulting in an employee shredding email and other relevant documents after a suit had been filed. Although the court found that the employee did not act in bad faith, they also imposed a rebuttable adverse inference sanction for the city's negligence.
Whitehall Specialties, Inc. v. Delaportas, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4345 (W.D. Wisc. Mar. 10, 2005).
The court entered a default judgment of $2.2 million due to defendant's discovery misconduct.
Deans v. Terry, 2005 N.C. App. LEXIS 425 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2005).
In this child support and custody action, the wife was not required to show prejudice in order to obtain sanctions due to the husband's failure to meet discovery obligations.
Lava Trading, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2866 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2005).
The magistrate judge recommended sanctions against plaintiff who "engaged in repeated improper discovery conduct", such as withholding email until the end of discovery and after expert discovery. The recommended sanctions included cost-shifting, partial preclusion, and additional depositions of certain witnesses.
E*Trade Secs. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3021 (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2005).
The federal magistrate judge recommended sanctions be imposed on the defendant in the form of an adverse jury instruction.
Beck v. Atlantic Coast PLC, 2005 Del. Ch. LEXIS 15, (Del. Ch. February 11, 2005).
This fraud and breach of warranty suit against defendant was dismissed and fees were awarded to the company as a result of plaintiff's deception regarding his use of software.
Green v. Baca, 225 F.R.D. 612 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
As the magistrate judge was performing an in camera review of over 11,000 documents that were provided by the county, he identified four computer-generated documents relating to the issue. This discovery resulted in the identification of additional electronic records, which the county had failed to disclose for nine months. The court awarded over $50,000 in attorney fees as sanctions.
Housing Rights Center v. Sterling, "Housing Rights II", 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28879 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2004).
The court issued sanctions, including payment of plaintiffs' fees and costs and payment of $500 per day of noncompliance to the court, due to the defendants' failure to comply with an order in which their net worth would be revealed.
Housing Rights Center v. Sterling, "Housing Rights I", 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28877
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2004).
The court issued sanctions, including an adverse inference jury instruction and attorney fees and costs, to the defendant for failing to preserve documents and implement a litigation hold.
Weaver v. Zenimax Media, Inc., 2004 WL 2755852 (Md. Cir. Ct. Sept. 3, 2004).
This wrongful termination suit was dismissed as a sanction against plaintiff for egregious discovery conduct.
Metropolitan Opera Association v. Local 100, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17093 (S.D.N.Y. August 27, 2004).
The court upheld the severe sanctions for discovery misconduct, which included deleting electronic information.
Hayman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (In re Telxon Securities Litigation), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27295 (N.D. Ohio July 2, 2004).
After the third-party defendant did not produce documents and strong evidence was identified that suggested spoliation, the magistrate judge recommended motions for sanctions against the third-party defendant.
Feather River Anesthesia Med. Group. v. The Fremont-Rideout Health Group, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6233 (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2004).
Under the California Civil Discovery Act, sanctions were awarded after the health group refused to disclose discoverable evidence.
 View Additional Case Summaries Regarding Sanctions
|
|
|
|
|
|
