Sanctions Archives - International Litigation Services

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
September 5, 2019

Failure To Disclose And Subsequent Deletion of Social Media Account Leads to Adverse Inference Sanction

In Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc., et. al., No. 16-2195 (ADC) (D.P.R. July 16, 2019), the judge imposed a sanction of adverse inference against Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s failure to disclose and subsequent deletion of a social media account while the litigation was pending. This case involves allegations of unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and unjust

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

ilsteam
July 30, 2019

Motion For Sanctions Denied On Grounds of Failure to Establish Prejudice, Despite Finding Defendant’s Clear Failure to Preserve Evidence

In Maifile v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., No. 18-CV-586-TCK-FHM (N.D. Okla. May 21, 2019), an Oklahoma Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions on grounds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate she suffered prejudice from the loss of her previous work computer, despite finding the Defendant’s clear failure to preserve the computer. This case involves an employment

ilsteam
July 26, 2019

Judge Rules That Defendant’s Objections To Discovery Were Untimely And Without Specificity

In Thomas on Behalf of Estate of Thomas v. Bannum Place, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-13492 and No. 4:18-cv-10222 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2019), the Magistrate Judge granted and denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ruling that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery request were waived on the grounds of failing to timely object and for objecting

ilsteam
July 19, 2019

Judge Rules that Two-year Knowledge of Spoliation Prior to Filing of Motion Makes It “Untimely”

In Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc., No 3:15-cv-1857-SI (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2019), the Oregon District Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defendant on the grounds that since Plaintiff knew about the spoliation for over two years, her motion was “untimely.” This case stems from alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in which