Request For Forensic Exam Denied by Court Where Moving Party Failed To Exhaust Other Less Intrusive Means Of Collecting The Same Information
In TIREBOOTS BY UNIVERSAL CANVAS, INC. v. TIRESOCKS, INC., TIRESOCKS INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 20 CV 7404 (N.D. Illinois, June 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ electronically stored information (“ESI”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2). Plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller
In Denying Forensic Exam, Court Rules that FRCP 34(a) Does Not Create A Routine Right of Direct Access To Electronic Information Systems
In The Ruby Slipper, LLC v. Belou, et al, No. 18-1548 (E.D. La April 6, 2020), Chief Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Supplemental Forensic Examination which sought to forensically examine previously undisclosed computers on the grounds that Defendant did not violate the previous Order on Protocol
Plaintiff Sanctioned for Intentionally Spoliating Cell Phone Evidence
In employment discrimination case Brewer v. Leprino Foods Company, Inc., No CV-1:16-1091-SMM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019), the Eastern District of California granted Defendant’s motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2), finding that Plaintiff “acted with the intent to deprive” Defendant of certain relevant ESI. The sanction motion
Plaintiffs Sanctioned for Producing Emails as PDFs
In Johnson, et al. v. Italian Shoemakers, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00740-FDW-DSC (W.D. N.C. Oct. 22, 2018), the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina affirmed the magistrate judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation and granted defendant’s motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs for their failure to comply with a discovery
Summary Judgment Denied After Court Finds Defendant Altered Skype Communication Records
In GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc, No. 16-cv-01944-SI, (N.D.Cal. 2018), the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. During discovery related to the parties’ dispute regarding federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition, Defendant 360Heros, Inc., (“Defendant”) produced transcripts of two Skype conversations.
No Recusal Required Based on Facebook ‘Friend’ Status
In Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 3D17-1421 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 23, 2017) the Herssein Firm (“Herssein”) sued its former client, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”), for breach of contract and fraud. Herssein accused one of USAA’s executives of witness tampering. USAA
Court Finds Defendant’s Failure to Preserve a Car’s Electronic Control Module Constitutes Spoliation
In Barry v. Big M Transportation, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00167-JEO (Dist. Court ND Alabama, 2017), the United States District Court N.D. Alabama, Eastern Division determined that the failure to preserve a vehicle’s Electronic Control Module in a case involving a vehicle crash constituted spoliation of the evidence. This action arises out of
Plaintiff Unable to Establish Spoliation Despite Suspicious Activity
Can use of computer wiping software be innocuous once litigation commences, or is such use sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to establish spoliation sanctions? The court considered this question in HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. v. Valda Flowers, No 1:15-cv-3262-WSD (N.D. Georgia, January 30, 2017). Plaintiff sued Defendant for alleged misappropriation of
Plaintiff Permitted to View Image of Non-Party’s Computer in Business Torts Case
In Legacy Data Access, LLC v. Mediquant, Inc., Case No. 17-00069 (W.D. N.C., May 22, 2017), Plaintiff sued Defendant in the Western District of North Carolina for various business torts after Defendant allegedly poached several of Plaintiff’s former employees. In January 2017, Plaintiff served a subpoena upon one of its
Fourth Circuit Affirms Finding that No ESI Spoliation Occurred in Trade Secrets Case
In Integrated Direct Marketing, LLC v. May et. al., Case No. 16-1032 (4th Cir., May 30, 2017), Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff sued Defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff is a direct competitor with Defendant Merkle;