-
Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Granted Under Federal Rules 37(e) and Rule 37(c)(1) – Part II
Part I addressed the Court’s ruling in FAST v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, No. CV-20-01448-PHX-DGC (D. Arizona Fed. 2022), under Rule 37(e) regarding the duty to preserve. Part II below addresses the Court’s ruling regarding Rule 37(c) and the failure to produce. Defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) for Plaintiff’s failure
-
Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Granted Under Federal Rules 37(e) and Rule 37(c)(1) – Part I
In FAST v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, No. CV-20-01448-PHX-DGC (D. Arizona Feb. 2022), before the Court was Defendants’ motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and (e), which presented a multitude of alleged sanctionable conduct by Plaintiff. Part 1 of this post will focus on the Court’s analysis under
-
Motion Regarding Lack of Metadata and Incomplete Email Threads Denied For Lack of Specificity
In RAINS v. WESTMINSTER COLLEGE and KOERNER, No. 2:20-cv-00520 (D. Utah Feb. 1 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Short Form Motion to Compel and/or for Sanctions for Spoliation. The case arose from Plaintiff’s allegations that she was wrongfully terminated from a faculty position by her former employer. Plaintiff moved
-
Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling Regarding Insufficient Video Footage Denied
In BIRREN v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2022), before the Court were Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order on CCTV spoliation, and Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order. On July 7, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated a maritime personal injury action against Defendant. In
-
Default Judgment Recommended by Magistrate Judge Following Defendants’ Repeated Violations of Discovery Orders
In STATE FARM MUTUAL, AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., v. MAX REHAB PHYSICAL THERAPY, LLC, ET AL., No.: 18-13257 (E.D. Mich. June 28, 2021), before the Magistrate Judge was the issue of Defendants’ repeated violations of Plaintiff’s discovery requests and various court orders and whether default judgment in favor of Plaintiff was
-
Rule 37 Sanctions Awarded Arising From Plaintiff’s Failure to Preserve and Deletion of Snapchat Data
In JOHN DOE v. PURDUE UNIVERSITY, No. 2:17-CV-33-JPK (N.D. Ind. Jul. 2, 2021) before the Court was Defendants’ Request for Issuance of Order to Show Cause Regarding Plaintiff’s Non-Compliance with Order and Spoliation of Evidence. At issue was social media discovery from Plaintiff sought by Defendants, Purdue University and related
-
Neither The Attorney-Client Privilege Nor Work-Product Doctrine Prohibits The Disclosure of Factual Information About A Party’s Discovery Efforts
In GINA VASOLI v. YARDS BREWING COMPANY, and TREVOR PRICHETT, Civil Action No. 21-2066 (E.D.P.A. Nov. 1, 2021), at issue was whether Defendants withheld ESI that would have been pertinent to Plaintiff’s employment discrimination and retaliation case. During discovery, Defendant Yards Brewing Company, LLC (“Yards”), and its Chief Executive Officer,
-
Motion To Permit Introduction of Spoliation Evidence At Trial Granted
In In Re: GOLD KING MINE RELEASE IN SAN JUAN COUNTY, COLORADO, No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ (D. NM Aug 6, 2021) before the Court was the Navajo Nation’s and the State of New Mexico’s (“Sovereign Plaintiffs) and Sunnyside Gold Corporation’s (SGC) Motion for Sanctions arising from the EPA’s alleged spoliation of evidence.
-
Evidence Of Defendants’ Intentional Destruction Of Encryption Keys Permitted To Be Presented To Jury
[kc_row use_container=”yes” force=”no” column_align=”middle” video_mute=”no” _id=”935427″][kc_column width=”12/12″ video_mute=”no” _id=”803459″][kc_column_text _id=”725881″] In DOUBLELINE CAPITAL v. ODEBRECHT FINANCE, No. 17-CV-4576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021), a securities fraud lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought sanctions against Defendants, specifically, a mandatory adverse inference instruction at trial, as remedy for Defendants’ intentional destruction of encryption keys needed to
-
Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Allegations of Spoliation Overruled
In KIEFFABER v. ETHICON, Civil Action No. 20-1177-KHV (D. Kansas March 25, 2021), Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiffs’ allegations of Defendants’ spoliation. Despite an admission by its corporate designee that Ethicon destroyed tens of thousands of relevant documents in violation of its own document