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
Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Denied In Light Of Failure To Prove Intent To Deprive
In MEDIDATA SOLUTIONS, INC. ET AL. v. VEEVA SOLUTIONS, INC., N. 17 Civ. 589 (LSG) (S.D. NY, Sept. 22, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ spoliation sanctions in the form of an adverse inference. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant spoliated evidence when Defendant failed to prevent one of its employees, Anthony
Court Rules, In Part, That Emails Among Non-Attorneys In A Corporation Maybe Privileged If Made At Direction of Counsel To Gather Information To Aid Counsel in Providing Legal Services
In ALLGOOD v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case 2:19-cv-02323-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Defendants’ purportedly privileged documents to the Court for in camera review. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Baptist Memorial Medical Group. On Oct. 10, 2018, Plaintiff
Court Denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions After Finding Rule 37(e) Did Not Support Adverse Inference Instruction
In HAMRICK v. SPLASH TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL., No. 3:20-CV-00417-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 31, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions against Defendants. The action arose from a vehicular incident. Defendant Elmehalawy was the truck driver for Splash Transport, Inc. (“Splash”). Defendant James was the truck driver for