Sanctions – ILS

ILS Team
April 9, 2020

In Slip And Fall Case, Motion For Spoliation Of Video Denied Where No Duty to Preserve Video Arose Until After Lawsuit Was Filed

In Nguyen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 9:19-cv-80393 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020), a Florida Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of a video allegedly showing a slip-and-fall by plaintiff on the grounds that defendant had no affirmative duty to preserve the video for the nearly two-year gap between the alleged accident

ILS Team
December 25, 2019

Use Of Messaging App To Auto Delete Text Messages During Discovery Phase of Case Was In Bad Faith

In Herzig v. Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02101 (W.D. Ark. July 3, 2019), the Arkansas District Judge found that Plaintiffs acted in bad faith by using and “manually configuring [the messaging app] Signal to delete text communications” and by failing to disclose those deleted messages to Defendant. However, the Court declined to

ILS Team
November 20, 2019

Claw Back of Inadvertently Produced Data Permitted Despite Lack of Rule 502(d) Order

In Bellamy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Texas, LLC, No. SA-18-CV-60-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2019), a Texas District Judge ruled that Defendant was entitled to “claw back” certain documents it unintentionally produced. However, the Judge still considered the inadvertently produced documents in analyzing Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and granted Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that the

ILS Team
November 13, 2019

Motion To Compel Native Production Denied Because Native Was Not Specified

In Smith v. TFI Family Services, Inc., No. 17-02235-JWB-GEB (D. Kan. Sep. 4, 2019), a Kansas Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Against Defendant to Show Good Cause Why it Should not be Held in Contempt and Motion for Sanctions for failing to produce ESI in native format with associated metadata. The denial was

ilsteam
September 18, 2019

Sanctions Granted Due To Defendant “Willfully” Acting To Prevent Plaintiff From Accessing Photographic Evidence

In Wilmoth v. Deputy Austin Murphy, No. 5:16-CV-5244 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 7, 2019), an Arkansas District Judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation on the grounds that Defendant’s conduct exhibited an “intent to deprive” Plaintiff of the use of photographs that supported Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant. This case involves claims of excessive use of

ilsteam
September 13, 2019

Failure To Preserve Police Dash Cam Video Results in Sanctions

In Woods v. Scissons, No. CV-17-08038-PCT-GMS (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2019), an Arizona Chief District judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of video footage of an arrest involving Plaintiff and Defendant, a police officer with the Prescott Police Department. In this case, the Court ruled that non-party

ilsteam
August 9, 2019

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request For Adverse Inference Due To Plaintiff’s Failure to Demonstrate Defendant’s Intent

In Drivetime Car Sales Company, LLC v. Pettigrew, No. 2:17-cv-371(S.D. Ohio April 18, 2019), the Judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference sanction against Defendant Pauley Motor on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that Defendant Bruce Pauley intentionally failed to take reasonable steps to preserve

ilsteam
August 6, 2019

Magistrate Judge Recommends Default Judgment Against Defendants For Wide-Scale Discovery Misconduct

In Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Adelphia Supply USA, et al., No. 15-CV-5826(CBA)(LB) (E.D.N.Y May 2, 2019), a New York Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for case ending sanctions be granted on the grounds that Defendants’ course of conduct presented “a cautionary tale about how not to conduct discovery in federal court.” The underlying

ilsteam
August 1, 2019

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel ESI Granted Including Setting of 85% Search Term Responsive Rate

In Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., No. 18-1100-EFM-ADM (D. Kan. April 26, 2019), a Kansas Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering Defendant to produce documents related to two requests and, with regard to a third request, ordered Defendant to produce documents “to the extent such documents are