Plaintiffs Permitted to Proceed With “Plainly Relevant And Core Discovery” Pending Motion To Dismiss
In Udeen v. Subaru of America, Inc., Civ. No. 18-17334(RBK/JS)(D. NJ Mar. 12, 2019), the Magistrate Judge denied Defendant’s request to stay all discovery pending a ruling on their Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that a stay would impose an undue prejudice on the non-moving Plaintiffs. This putative nationwide
Court Orders Discovery of Chadbourne & Parke Partners’ Personal Emails in Sex Discrimination Suit
In the headline-grabbing $155 million dollar sex discrimination lawsuit, a Manhattan federal judge has ordered six lawyers with senior positions at the prestigious law firm Chadbourne & Parke LLP to search their personal email accounts for documents related to the discrimination suit. The court ordered the search over Defendants’ objections,
Third-Party Production Reveals that Defendant Deleted Emails; Court Issues Spoliation Sanctions
In Edelson v. Cheung, No. 2:13-cv-5870 (D.N.J. 2017), Plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant’s deletion of emails, arguing that a third party production revealed that Defendant had deleted emails and intended to keep an email account hidden from Plaintiff. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff instituted an action against Defendant Stephen
Court Levels Interim Sanctions Against Party Who Admittedly Spoliated Evidence; Terminating Sanction May Follow
In Blasi v. United Debt Services, No. 2:14-cv-83, (S.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2017), the Court ruled that a named party in a class action was prejudiced by a Defendant’s intentional destruction of potentially relevant evidence, and failure to comply with Court-ordered discovery. The original complaint alleged, on a class action
Court Compels Debt Collector to Create Computer Program to Generate Class Data
In Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against United Collection Bureau, alleging it had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) The TCPA prohibits using artificial recordings or automated dialers to call mobile phones. Plaintiff argued that Defendant made multiple automated calls to her mobile
Defendant Ordered To Produce SalesForce Records Requested By Plaintiffs To Prove Wage Class Action
In Williams v. Angie’s List, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00878-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2017), a class-action employment case, Defendant Angie’s List produced data spanning one year of a three year time range requested by Plaintiffs, but refused to turn over the balance. The Plaintffs moved to compel. The Plaintiffs who brought
Court Orders Further Discovery Against Specific Employee In WrongFul Termination Dispute, But Denies Company Wide Discovery
In Quinonez-Castellanos v. Performance Contractors, Inc., Dist. Court, ND Iowa 2017, the Court considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, in a case involving charges that Defendants unlawfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment, in contravention of Iowa state and Federal statutory law regarding Civil Rights protection and sexual discrimination. Plaintiff was employed by
Contact Information for Potential Plaintiffs Is Considered Discoverable in Both PAGA and Non-PAGA Cases.
In Michael Williams v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. S227228, (Cal. 2017) the action is seeking civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees statewide for alleged wage and hour violations based on Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). In the
Court Orders Statistical Sampling in Response to UPS Unduly Burdensome Objection
In the putative class action lawsuit Solo, et al. v. UPS, No. 14-12719, E.D. Michigan (Jan. 10, 2017), Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant breached its contract due to over-billing practices. The parties sought the court’s guidance to resolve a proportionality discovery dispute under FRCP 26(b). Plaintiffs requested packaging information for all
Defendants in Putative Class Action Suit Required to Provide Email Information
In Munguia-Brown, et. al. v. Equity Residential, et. al., Case No. 16-01225 (N.D. Cali., June 20, 2017), Plaintiffs asserted that landlord Defendants charged Plaintiffs improper late fees in violation of California law. Plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of employees involved in the decision to adopt the late fee policy