-
No New Trial Despite Evidence of Potential Email Spoliation in FLSA Case
In Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case Jenkins v. Anton et. al., Case No. 15-00283 (M.D. Fl., June 8, 2017), the court entered judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that Plaintiff had not proved that Defendant violated overtime laws. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Amend Judgment or for New
-
No Spoliation Found where Google Chrome Web History Automatically Deleted Prior to Litigation Hold
Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Case No. 16-00018 (E.D. N.C., June 7, 2017) is a libel suit related to an allegedly defamatory investor presentation. Plaintiff was an investor in Defendant, a biopharmaceutical company. Plaintiff owns a pharmaceutical research organization called PPD, which contracted with Aventis Pharmaceuticals to provide clinical research
-
Defendant Must Produce ESI Not In Its Physical Custody But Under Its Control, Computer Imaging Denied Because Need Not Proportional
In First American Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Business Technology, Inc., et. al., Case No. 15-638 (E.D. La., May 24, 2017), Plaintiff sued Defendants for damages it allegedly incurred as a result of “deficient and defective” software designed, manufactured and hosted by Defendants. Plaintiff used the software to process cash advances
-
Law Firm Defendant Sanctioned for Negligent Destruction of ESI
In DiStefano v. Katsos et. al., Case No. 11-2893 (E.D. N.Y., May 10, 2017), Plaintiff business owners hired Defendant lawyer Katsos to advise them regarding their financial difficulties, including how to establish a trust to protect their personal assets from business creditors and how to negotiate with creditors. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s
-
Willful Discovery Misconduct Results in Default Judgment in Successor Liability
Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. v. Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc. et. al., Case No. 14-6512 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2017) is a successor liability case brought by Plaintiff, a lender, against Defendants, two related film companies that are the alleged successors to a loan obligation and subsequent judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
-
The Choice is Yours: ESI Production Under FRCP 34
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E) is all about choice: a party can choose to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in the usual course of business, or it can be organized and labeled to respond to the corresponding discovery requests. A seemingly-simple rule, FRCP 34 is often cited as the
-
Adverse Inference Instruction Ordered for ESI Spoliation Outside the Scope of FRCP 37(e)
In United States ex. rel. Scutellaro v. Capitol Supply, Inc., Case No. 10-1094 (District of Columbia, Apr. 19, 2017), the relator, Louis Scutellaro, sued Defendant under the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act (FCA). The suit alleged that Defendant falsely certified that its products sold to federal agencies
-
Court Orders Defendant to Create Search Program to Query Database For Discovery Response in Robocall Class Action
In Meredith et. al. v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 16-01102 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 13, 2017) Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which makes it unlawful to generate a telephone call using an automated dialing system or an artificial
-
Re Deleted Audio Recording, Court Unpersuaded FRCP 37(e) Applied-Intentional Spoliation Found and Sanctions Ordered Instead
In Hsueh v. New York State Dept. of Financial Services et. al., Case No. 15-03401 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 31, 2017), Plaintiff sued her former employer, a New York State government department (“Department”), and a Department former co-worker. Plaintiff alleged that the co-worker, Abraham Guevara, sexually harassed her and that the Department
-
Court Disagrees With Defendant’s Contention That It Had No Obligation To Produce ESI Without Previously Agreed Search Terms
In Bird v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 16-1130 (E.D. Cali., Mar. 31, 2017), after Plaintiff was fired from her job in May 2014, she sued her former employer, Wells Fargo Bank, for gender and age discrimination, and breach of employment contract . Defendant responded that Plaintiff was fired because