-
Court Rejects Defendants’ “Argument of Convenience to Avoid Sanctions”
In LEWIS v. BURL CAIN, ET AL., Civil No. 15-318-SDD-RLB (M.D. Louisiana, April 2022), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions. The basis for Plaintiffs’ motion was their request for production of “complete medical records” of 67 class members. Plaintiffs moved for Sanctions for two reasons: “(1) the
-
Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Spoliation Finding Sufficient Specificity In Plaintiff’s Complaint
In DEAN v. CITY OF KENOVA ET AL., Civil Action No. 3:21-0197 (S.D. WV, April 19, 2022), before the Court was Defendant Bob Sullivan’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s action for spoliation. Plaintiff was the administrator of Mr. James Dean’s estate following his death. Mr. Dean was arrested on April 5,
-
Court Denied Defendant’s Motion for Review of the Clerk’s Taxation of E-Discovery Costs
In SUMOTEXT CORP., v. ZOOVE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 16-cv-01370-BLF (N.D. Cal. San Jose Div., Aug. 23, 2021), before the Court was Defendant’s Motion for Review of the Clerk’s Taxation of E-Discovery Costs. Defendant argued that the Clerk improperly denied its request for $14,804.00 in electronic discovery costs. On
-
Providing The Size Of Potentially Responsive Data After Performing Search by Gigabyte, Rather Than Document Hits, By a Third Party, Ruled Not In Bad Faith By Court
In RAVGEN, INC. v. STRECK, INC., No. 4:22CV3017 (D. Nebraska, March 29, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s second motion to compel a third party’s response to subpoenas, Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees, and third party’s timeline for contemplated ESI search. On Feb. 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to
-
Defendant Sanctioned For Blanket AEO Designations
In CellTrust Corporation v. ionLake, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-cv-2855 (WMW/TNL) (D. Minn. May 17, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions which presented multiple issues including blanket designation of documents as Attorney’s Eyes Only and spoliation. With respect to Defendant’s attorney’s eyes only designation, pursuant to
-
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