Court Denied Plaintiff’s Request for Terminating Sanctions After Finding, Among Others, that Plaintiff Failed to Show the Requisite Intent Required Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(e)
In PAULY v. STANFORD HEALTH CARE, Case No. 18-cv-05387-SI (N.D. Cal, Sept. 12, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Hixson’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant. Plaintiff filed her objection to Judge Hixson’s Report and Recommendation and objected to the following findings: “(1)
Court Denies Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Pattern of Discovery Abuse
In COOLEY v. TARGET CORPORATION ET AL., Civil No. 20-2152 (DWF/DTS) (D. Minn. Aug. 24, 2022), a case involving a copyright dispute, Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order dated June 10, 2022, that denied her Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Pattern of Discovery Abuse. As an
Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Denied In Light Of Failure To Prove Intent To Deprive
In MEDIDATA SOLUTIONS, INC. ET AL. v. VEEVA SOLUTIONS, INC., N. 17 Civ. 589 (LSG) (S.D. NY, Sept. 22, 2021), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ spoliation sanctions in the form of an adverse inference. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant spoliated evidence when Defendant failed to prevent one of its employees, Anthony
Court Denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions After Finding Rule 37(e) Did Not Support Adverse Inference Instruction
In HAMRICK v. SPLASH TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL., No. 3:20-CV-00417-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 31, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions against Defendants. The action arose from a vehicular incident. Defendant Elmehalawy was the truck driver for Splash Transport, Inc. (“Splash”). Defendant James was the truck driver for
Court Rejects Defendants’ “Argument of Convenience to Avoid Sanctions”
In LEWIS v. BURL CAIN, ET AL., Civil No. 15-318-SDD-RLB (M.D. Louisiana, April 2022), before the Court was Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions. The basis for Plaintiffs’ motion was their request for production of “complete medical records” of 67 class members. Plaintiffs moved for Sanctions for two reasons: “(1) the
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
Defendant Sanctioned For Blanket AEO Designations
In CellTrust Corporation v. ionLake, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-cv-2855 (WMW/TNL) (D. Minn. May 17, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions which presented multiple issues including blanket designation of documents as Attorney’s Eyes Only and spoliation. With respect to Defendant’s attorney’s eyes only designation, pursuant to
Refusal to Pay Hacker’s Ransom Is Not Spoliation under Rule 37(e)
In MASTEROBJECTS, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC., No. C 20-08103 WHA (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2022), before the Special Master was Defendant’s Rule 37 motion that alleged violations of the Court’s Discovery Order and a motion for spoliation sanctions. With respect to the spoliation issue, the facts were that on Dec.
Plaintiff Permitted to Amend Complaint to Add State Law Claim for Intentional Spoliation of Evidence Instead of Seeking Spoliation Sanctions Through a Discovery Motion
In WILLIAMS v. BARTON MALOW CO., ET AL., Case No. 3:20-CV-02594-JGC (N.D. Ohio, W. Div. Jan. 21, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint which, in addition to naming additional defendants, also sought to add a tort claim for intentional spoliation under Ohio
“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