-
Motion For Spoliation Sanctions for Deletion of Surveillance Video Denied
In OLIVER v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 22-CV-149 (E.D. Wisconsin, May 8, 2023), before the Court, among others, was Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions based on Amazon’s alleged destruction of surveillance video that Plaintiff contended was vital to her case. Plaintiff alleged that while she was employed at Amazon
-
Court Concludes Defendant Did Not Take Reasonable Steps to Preserve Evidence in Anticipation of Litigation
In IN RE GOOGLE PLAY STORE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal., March 28, 2023), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). Plaintiffs alleged Google did not adequately preserve communications that were exchanged internally on its Chat message system, and therefore
-
Motion to Compel Examination of Personal and Business Electronic Devices Denied After Court Found Motion Pre-mature and Based on Speculation
In PARTNERS INSIGHT, LLC v. JENNIFER GILL ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-739-SPC-KCD (M.D. Florida, April 10, 2023), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ personal and business electronics. Plaintiffs were affiliated entities that provided management assistance for optometry practices, which includes running marketing and
-
Court Order Not Clearly Erroneous After Finding Plaintiff Took Reasonable Steps to Identify and Produce Relevant Documents
In ALIVECOR, INC., v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 21-cv-03958-JSW (N.D. California, Feb. 23, 2023), before the Court was Defendant’s motion for relief from a non-dispositive discovery order. This dispute arose out of the parties’ decision to utilize technology assisted review (“TAR”) to locate and produce ESI material in response to
-
Motion for Sanctions Denied After Finding Defendant Met Discovery Deadlines and Promptly Notified Plaintiff of Errors
In FLUOR FEDERAL SOLUTIONS, LLC v. BAE SYSTEMS ORDNANCE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-698 (W.D. VA, Feb. 7, 2023), Plaintiff sought sanctions against Defendant to recover the fees and costs of re-deposing five witnesses after Defendant produced approximately eighty thousand documents mistakenly withheld due to an e-discovery vendor error. This
-
Motion for Sanctions Denied Based On Court’s Lack of Inherent Authority to Sanction And Where Parties Did Not Engage In A Rule 37(e) Analysis
In MONARREZ v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00431-ART-DJA (D. Nev., Feb. 22, 2023), before the court was Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions. Plaintiff argued Defendants failed to preserve the original version of the customer report incident, which would have been made on one of the Defendants’ iPads and failed
-
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Search Terms Denied
In IMPRIMISRX v. OSRX, INC., Case No. 21-cv-1305-BAS-DDL (S.D. CA, Dec. 19, 2022), before the Court was Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Search Terms (“Motion”). Defendants sought an order compelling Plaintiff to disclose the sources, methodology, and search terms used to collect emails and other documents from Plaintiff’s president,
-
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
-
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)