-
Counsel Ordered to Pay Attorney Fees After Failing to Meet and Confer
In Saliga v. Chemtura Corp., Case No. 3:12cv832 (VAB) (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2015), the Connecticut district court considered whether plaintiff had satisfied its obligations to first meet and confer in good faith before approaching the court. Plaintiff and Defendant had engaged in what the court described as unnecessarily protracted, contentious, and
-
Untimely and Piecemeal Defense Production Leads to Attorney Fee Award
Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions due to Defendants’ continued failure to fully and completely respond to Plaintiff’s document requests in Logtale, Ltd. v. Ikor, Inc. et al., No. C-11-5452 EDL(DMR) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015). Plaintiff filed its first motion to compel after Defendant produced an admittedly late and incomplete production. The court
-
Attorneys’ Fee Award Overturned Because Plaintiff’s ESI Request Not “Clearly Frivolous”
In Bertoli et al. v. City of Sebastopol, et al., No.A132916 (Ct. App. Ca. Jan. 20, 2015), the California Court of Appeals considered an eDiscovery dispute involving a plaintiff’s use of California’s Public Records Act. Plaintiff, who was rendered permanently physically and mentally disabled after being hit by a car while
-
Sanctions Imposed After National Title Company Fails To Institute A Litigation Hold
In Fidelity National Title Insurance Company v. Captiva Lake Investments, Case No. 4:10-CV-1890 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015), Defendant Captiva Lake Investments (“Captiva”) uncovered two sets of data that Plaintiff Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Fidelity) – one of the largest title and escrow services companies in the United States – had
-
Delaware Chancery Court Sanctions Counsel for Violating Ethical Duty to Maintain Technological Competence
In our last post, we reviewed an eDiscovery dispute in the class action litigation James et al. v. National Finance LLC, C.A. No. 8931-VCL (Del. Ch. Dec. 5, 2014) where Defendant failed to comply with the Delaware Court of Chancery’s order that Defendant provide Plaintiffs with an affidavit from its ediscovery vendor regarding
-
Are ESI Costs Recoverable by a Prevailing Party Under 28 U.S. Code Section 1920?
The Northern District of California in Bonillas v. United Air Lines Inc., No. C-12-06574 (EDL) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014) recently considered Defendant United Airlines’ request for ESI costs as the prevailing party on summary judgment pursuant to 28 U.S. Code Section 1920’s taxation of costs provision. Citing Alzheimer’s Institute of America, Inc.
-
Plaintiff Not Obligated To Produce ESI Maintained By Plaintiff’s eDiscovery Vendor
In Ablan v. Bank of America, Case No. 11 C 4493 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 24, 2014), Defendant sought discovery from Plaintiff regarding documents and data that third-party Tax Strategies Group (TSG) had produced in a related settled state court litigation. Plaintiff stated that it had disposed of the discovery TSG produced in the state court action, and
-
Court-ordered Disclosure of Metadata Uncovers Falsified Document
Metadata, a.k.a. the “data about data,” provides an extremely useful source of electronic discovery information, and new cases every day demonstrate that courts increasingly recognize its relevancy as evidence. In Tangible Value, LLC v. Town Sports International Holdings Inc., Civil Action No. 10-1453-MAS-TJB (D.N.J. November 19, 2014), the production of metadata irrevocably altered
-
A Cautionary Tale: Attorney Fees Awarded After Plaintiff’s Failure to Timely Produce ESI
Under FRCP 37(a)(5)(A), if a motion to compel is granted—or if requested discovery is provided after a motion is filed—a court can require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion “to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney fees.” The Western District of Michigan recently considered this rule in Michigan Millers
-
Plaintiff To Receive FRCP 37 Attorney Fees After Defeating Defendant’s Unjustified Motion To Compel
Under Federal Rule of Procedure 37(a)(5)(B), a court denying a motion to compel may award attorney fees to the prevailing party provided that the court does not conclude that the motion to compel was “substantially justified” or that “other circumstances [would] make an award of expense unjust.” The party who lost the motion