-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Granted Under Federal Rules 37(e) and Rule 37(c)(1) – Part II
Part I addressed the Court’s ruling in FAST v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, No. CV-20-01448-PHX-DGC (D. Arizona Fed. 2022), under Rule 37(e) regarding the duty to preserve. Part II below addresses the Court’s ruling regarding Rule 37(c) and the failure to produce. Defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) for Plaintiff’s failure
-
Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Granted Under Federal Rules 37(e) and Rule 37(c)(1) – Part I
In FAST v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, No. CV-20-01448-PHX-DGC (D. Arizona Feb. 2022), before the Court was Defendants’ motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and (e), which presented a multitude of alleged sanctionable conduct by Plaintiff. Part 1 of this post will focus on the Court’s analysis under
-
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike “Material Changes” From Errata Sheets Granted
In PAJAK v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-160 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 10, 2022), before the Magistrate Judge were issues arising from Plaintiff’s efforts to conduct discovery related to her complaints alleging Defendants’ intentional spoliation of evidence. The spoliation claims focused on Defendants’ efforts to gather, preserve, and
-
Default Judgment Recommended by Magistrate Judge Following Defendants’ Repeated Violations of Discovery Orders
In STATE FARM MUTUAL, AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., v. MAX REHAB PHYSICAL THERAPY, LLC, ET AL., No.: 18-13257 (E.D. Mich. June 28, 2021), before the Magistrate Judge was the issue of Defendants’ repeated violations of Plaintiff’s discovery requests and various court orders and whether default judgment in favor of Plaintiff was
-
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Rigorous Social Media Discovery Searches From Class Plaintiffs Denied
In In re: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. FL Nov. 15, 2021) Defendants served the 10 named Class Plaintiffs with Requests for Production and Interrogatories related to the Second Amended Consolidated Economic Loss Class Action Complaint and the Amended Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint. At issue