-
No Spoliation For Lost Emails Under FRCP 37(e) Where Potential Prejudice is Purely Speculative
In CIGNEX Datamatics, Inc. v. Lam Research Corporation, No. 17-320-MN (D. Del. Mar. 11, 2019), the court denied Defendant’s motions for spoliation and for sanctions, finding insufficient evidence that Plaintiff suffered prejudice due to the deleted electronically stored information (“ESI”). This case stems from a breach of contract in which
-
SDNY Dismisses Action After Finding Plaintiff Fabricated Emails
In Comlab, Corp. v. Kal Tire, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1907(KBF)(S.D. N.Y. September 11, 2018), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff willfully and in bad-faith fabricated and spoliated relevant evidence. In this breach
-
Lack of Intent to Deprive Means No Spoliation Sanctions Where Defendant Copied and Later Deleted Plaintiff’s Email
In Worldplay, US, Inc. v. Haydon and Eunyt LLC, No. 17-cv-4179 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff’s Motions for Sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff had not suffered prejudice under Rule 37(e)(1) due to allegedly destroyed electronically stored
-
Court Chides Defendant for Allowing Deletion of Key Instant Messages
In Franklin v. Howard Brown Health Ctr., Case No. 17 C 8376 (N.D. Ill. October 4, 2018), a workplace harassment and discrimination case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions be granted to the extent that the “parties be
-
Court Orders Defendant To Produce Responsive Emails In Native Format
In City of San Jose v. JUM GLOBAL, LLC., Case No. 16-cv-01462-VKD (N.D. Ca. July 11, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Defendant to produce its responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”) in native format after Defendant had
-
District Judge in Kansas Sanctions Secretary of State Kris Kobach for Discovery Competence Failures
In the consolidated cases of Fish v. Kobach and Bednasek v. Kobach, the plaintiffs challenged Kansas’ documentary proof-of-citizenship law. Based on the grounds that the law had prevented more than 35,000 Kansans from registering to vote, the plaintiff sought a court order requiring the state to register thousands who tried
-
SDNY Order Provides That Special Master Review 3,300 Page Privilege Log
In Winfield v. City of New York (Case No. 15-cv-05236, (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2018), New York Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker denied Plaintiff’s request to take a “quick” look at Defendant’s 3,300-page privilege log. Instead, the judge ordered that a special master review the documents. Winfield involves plaintiffs who are seeking
-
Carbon Copying a Lawyer Does Not Create an Automatic Privileged Communication, U.S. District Court Rules
In Texas Brine Co., LLC v. Dow Chem. Co., No 15-1102, 2017 WL 5625812 (E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2017), the Eastern District of Louisiana found that carbon copying (CC) legal counsel does not automatically protect that communication as privileged. This issue was evaluated by Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld when
-
Court Finds Production of Three Million Emails is Unreasonable
In Nece v. Quicken Loans, Inc. (Case No. 8:16-cv-2605-T-23CPT) (United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division), Eileen Nece (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Quicken Loans, Inc. (the defendant) over allegations that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Nece submitted four forms on Quicken’s website in December
-
Court Grants Spoliation Sanctions for Deleted Social Media Accounts
In Nunes v. Rushton (Case No. 2:14-cv-00627-JNP-DBP.)(United States District Court, D. Utah), the Court granted the plaintiff’s spoliation sanctions. Rachel Nunes (plaintiff) brought a copyright infringement claim against Tiffanie Rushton (defendant). The defendant copied protected portions of the plaintiff’s book, A Bid for Love, and released copies of the work