-
Motion to Compel Examination of Personal and Business Electronic Devices Denied After Court Found Motion Pre-mature and Based on Speculation
In PARTNERS INSIGHT, LLC v. JENNIFER GILL ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-739-SPC-KCD (M.D. Florida, April 10, 2023), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ personal and business electronics. Plaintiffs were affiliated entities that provided management assistance for optometry practices, which includes running marketing and
-
Motion for Sanctions Denied Based On Court’s Lack of Inherent Authority to Sanction And Where Parties Did Not Engage In A Rule 37(e) Analysis
In MONARREZ v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00431-ART-DJA (D. Nev., Feb. 22, 2023), before the court was Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions. Plaintiff argued Defendants failed to preserve the original version of the customer report incident, which would have been made on one of the Defendants’ iPads and failed
-
Motion to Compel Linear Review of Text Messages And Complete Production of Calendar Entries Without Application of Search Terms Denied
In IN RE:DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master Docket Misc. No. 18-1001, MDL No. 2862 (Jan. 26, 2023, W.D. Pennsylvania), Plaintiffs sought an order compelling Certain Defendants to produce text messages (after only a linear review) and the full calendars of approximately 45 custodians covering a five-year period pursuant to their First
-
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Search Terms Denied
In IMPRIMISRX v. OSRX, INC., Case No. 21-cv-1305-BAS-DDL (S.D. CA, Dec. 19, 2022), before the Court was Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Search Terms (“Motion”). Defendants sought an order compelling Plaintiff to disclose the sources, methodology, and search terms used to collect emails and other documents from Plaintiff’s president,
-
Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel After Finding Defendant’s Video Recording of Witness was Attorney Work Product
In CHANEY v. KEEGO HARBOR POLICE DEPT., Case No. 21-11662 (Jan. 5, 2023, Mich.), before the court was Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff filed this civil rights matter on July 16, 2021. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and tort claims under
-
Motion for Sanctions Denied in Part After Court Found That Ten Circuit’s Factors Did Not Weigh in Favor of Awarding Sanctions in the Form of Entry of Factual Findings
In UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. MARGARARET MCGUINN v. THE J.L. GRAY COMPANY, ET. AL., No. 2:20-cv-31 KG/KRS (D. New Mexico, July 27, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made false claims to secure funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural
-
Defendant Ordered To Produce Earlier-In-Time Emails That Were Part Of Most-Inclusive Email Threads Defendant Previously Produced
In IN RE ACTOS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master File No. 1:13-cv-09244 (RA) (SDA) (S.D. N.Y., March, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion that sought to compel Defendant to “(1) produce all nonprivileged, responsive earlier-in-time emails that are part of the most-inclusive email threads [Defendant] already has produced or will
-
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
-
“Out of District” Attorney Fees Awarded After Finding Defendants Failed to Meet Previous Court Orders Regarding Production of ESI
In WISHART v. WELKLEY ET. AL., No. 19-CV-6189-DGL-MJP (W.D. NY., March 11, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion for financial and non-financial sanctions. Plaintiff claimed that Correction Officer Welkley, Defendant, sexually harassed Plaintiff’s girlfriend when she came to visit Plaintiff in prison. The harassment allegedly involved a text messaging
-
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.