-
Refusal to Pay Hacker’s Ransom Is Not Spoliation under Rule 37(e)
In MASTEROBJECTS, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC., No. C 20-08103 WHA (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2022), before the Special Master was Defendant’s Rule 37 motion that alleged violations of the Court’s Discovery Order and a motion for spoliation sanctions. With respect to the spoliation issue, the facts were that on Dec.
-
Plaintiff Permitted to Amend Complaint to Add State Law Claim for Intentional Spoliation of Evidence Instead of Seeking Spoliation Sanctions Through a Discovery Motion
In WILLIAMS v. BARTON MALOW CO., ET AL., Case No. 3:20-CV-02594-JGC (N.D. Ohio, W. Div. Jan. 21, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint which, in addition to naming additional defendants, also sought to add a tort claim for intentional spoliation under Ohio
-
“Out of District” Attorney Fees Awarded After Finding Defendants Failed to Meet Previous Court Orders Regarding Production of ESI
In WISHART v. WELKLEY ET. AL., No. 19-CV-6189-DGL-MJP (W.D. NY., March 11, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion for financial and non-financial sanctions. Plaintiff claimed that Correction Officer Welkley, Defendant, sexually harassed Plaintiff’s girlfriend when she came to visit Plaintiff in prison. The harassment allegedly involved a text messaging
-
Court Overruled Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Decision to Deny Third Motion to Compel
In NORWOOD v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 19-2496-DDC-JPO (D. Kansas, Jan. 8, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Objections to two orders issued by Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara. Plaintiff’s first Objection asked the Court to set aside Judge O’Hara’s Order that denied Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel.
-
Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Inferences Denied After Finding Plaintiff Lacked Sufficient Evidence
In EMERSON CREEK POTTERY, INC., v. EMERSON CREEK EVENTS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 6:20-cv-54 (W.D. VA, Feb. 18, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s eleventh-hour motion for spoliation inferences. Plaintiff contended that counsel for Defendants failed to inform Defendants of their obligation to preserve ESI, and that counsel’s failure
-
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Spoliation Granted After Court Found Defendants’ Failure to Preserve Relevant Electronically Stored Information
In CONSTANCE COLLINS, ET AL. v. TRI-STATE ZOOLOGICAL PARK OF MARYLAND, INC., ET AL., Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-01225-PX (D. Md. Nov. 19, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged that Defendants maintained a public nuisance through the neglect and continued mistreatment of animals
-
Motion to Compel Production of Slack Messages Granted
In BENEBONE LLC v. PET QWERKS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 8:20-cv-00850-AB-AFMx (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2021), before the Court was Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to produce Slack communications. “Slack is a cloud-based software system that allows a company to organize its electronic discussions into user-defined categories called ‘channels.’” Plaintiff
-
Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanction Denied After Finding Defendants Had No Duty to Preserve
In CANADY v. BOSTIC, ET AL., No. 7:17cv00464 (W.D. Virginia, Feb. 23, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanction arising from Defendants’ alleged failure to preserve certain clips of video footage. Plaintiff contended that on June 25, 2015, in the B-2 pod housing area at Keen Mountain
-
Defendants’ Use And Maintenance Of An E-discovery Database Ruled Not A Recoverable Cost
In SAEVIK v. SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER and REBECCA DAY, No. C-19-1992-JCC (W.D. Wash. March 9, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion to retax costs. Following the Court’s previous summary judgment order, Defendants, as the prevailing parties, submitted a bill of costs seeking $28,995.51, that included, among others, $17,859.16 in
-
Costs of OCR Ruled Taxable by Court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4)
In U.S. FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC and U.S. EXHANGE HOLDINGS v. BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO and CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., No. 04 C 6756 (N.D. Illinois, Jan. 6, 2022), Defendants sought costs in the amount of $307,033.40 after the Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants that