-
Motion for Sanctions Denied After Finding Defendants Could Not Have Reasonably Foreseen Litigation
In LAWRENCE O. ANSLEY v. SECRETARY JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-528 (Jan. 5, 2023, M.D. PA), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on Defendants’ failure to preserve video footage. On March 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed his original complaint and alleged that Defendants conspired
-
Court Permits Plaintiff and Defendants to Present Evidence to Jury Concerning the Loss of Relevant ESI
In WILSON v. HH SAVANNAH, LLC. TRS SAVANNAH, LLC., and HYATT CORP., No. CV420-217 (S.D. GA, July 28, 2022), before the court was Plaintiff’s request to present evidence to the jury concerning the loss of relevant ESI. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell while exiting a guestroom shower at a
-
Motion for Sanctions Denied in Part After Court Found That Ten Circuit’s Factors Did Not Weigh in Favor of Awarding Sanctions in the Form of Entry of Factual Findings
In UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. MARGARARET MCGUINN v. THE J.L. GRAY COMPANY, ET. AL., No. 2:20-cv-31 KG/KRS (D. New Mexico, July 27, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made false claims to secure funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural
-
Court Denied Plaintiff’s Request for Terminating Sanctions After Finding, Among Others, that Plaintiff Failed to Show the Requisite Intent Required Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(e)
In PAULY v. STANFORD HEALTH CARE, Case No. 18-cv-05387-SI (N.D. Cal, Sept. 12, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Hixson’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant. Plaintiff filed her objection to Judge Hixson’s Report and Recommendation and objected to the following findings: “(1)
-
Court Affirmed Magistrate Judge’s Orders Imposing Costs for Expenses Incurred in Connection with TAR Process
In LAWSON v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 18-1100-EFM (D. Kansas, Oct. 18, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s orders that shifted and fixed the amount of e-discovery expenses against Plaintiff. On June 18, 2020, the Magistrate Judge previously granted Defendant’s motion to shift TAR
-
Court Denies Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Pattern of Discovery Abuse
In COOLEY v. TARGET CORPORATION ET AL., Civil No. 20-2152 (DWF/DTS) (D. Minn. Aug. 24, 2022), a case involving a copyright dispute, Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order dated June 10, 2022, that denied her Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Pattern of Discovery Abuse. As an
-
Defendant’s “Self-Collection” Efforts Insufficient After Court Found Defendant’s Counsel Failed to Supervise or Advise Defendant’s ESI Search
In EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. M1 5100 CORP., d/b/a JUMBO SUPERMARKET, INC., Civil No. 19-cv-81320-DIMITROULEAS/MATTHEWMAN, before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Privilege Log, Better Discovery Responses, and Fees (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed its Complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) of 1967, as amended, 29
-
Defendants’ Motion to Review Taxation of Costs Denied After Court Found Costs Did not Fall Within Categories of Awardable Costs Listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920
In OBESLO v. GREAT-WEST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC., Civil Actions Nos. Civil Action Nos. 16-cv-00230-CMA-SKC, 16-cv-01215-CMA-SKC, 16-cv-03162-CMA-SKC (D. Colorado, Aug. 25, 2021), before the Court was Defendants’ Motion to Review Taxation of Costs. This case was a shareholder derivative action brought under the Investment Company Act (“ICA”). After an 11-day bench
-
Request For Forensic Exam Denied by Court Where Moving Party Failed To Exhaust Other Less Intrusive Means Of Collecting The Same Information
In TIREBOOTS BY UNIVERSAL CANVAS, INC. v. TIRESOCKS, INC., TIRESOCKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 20 CV 7404 (N.D. Illinois, June 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ electronically stored information (“ESI”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2). Plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller
-
Defendant’s “Wait and See” Approach Rejected In Favor of Entry of ESI Protocol
In WEIDMAN ET. AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich. S. Div. Feb. 3, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of an ESI Protocol. This action arose from an alleged defect with the brake master cylinder in the Ford F-150 trucks, model years 2013