Sanctions – Page 3

ilsteam
October 3, 2018

Defendant Fails to Show Plaintiff Destroyed ESI; Court Denies Motion for Spoliation Sanctions

In World Trade Centers Association, Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 15 Civ. 7411 (S.D. N.Y. April 2, 2018), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Defendant’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions on the grounds that Defendant failed to show that Plaintiff destroyed any

ilsteam
June 27, 2018

Court Grants Partially Grants Spoliation Sanctions for Destroyed Video Footage

In Mizzoni v. Allison (Case No. 3-15-cv-00313-MMD-VPC.) (United States District Court, D. Nevada. May 14, 2018) the United States District Court for the District of Nevada decided on the Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the Defendant. Joseph Mizzoni, the Plaintiff, is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. Multiple Nevada

ilsteam
May 31, 2018

Destruction of Cell Phone Records, Lies Under Oath Considered by Court In Motion for Sanctions

In the lawsuit Heggen v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc., a former employee of Maxim Healthcare Services (Maxim) filed a lawsuit over alleged sexual harassment and retaliation. Maxim, the defendant, is a provider of temporary medical staff, home health care and wellness services. Plaintiff, who was employed at the company as a home health care aide,

ilsteam
May 25, 2018

Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies “Reasonably Foreseeable” Test for Duty to Preserve Evidence

In Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Koch et al., No. S17G0624 (Ga. March 15, 2018), the Supreme Court of Georgia granted writ to determine whether the Court of Appeals properly interpreted the law regarding the duty to preserve evidence. This case arose from an accident involving Plaintiff Renee Koch’s (“Koch”) husband, Gerald was driving

ilsteam
May 23, 2018

Court Determines Timeliness of Defendant’s Spoliation Sanctions Motion

In Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of America v. Mountaineer Gas Co., No. 2:15-cv-0959 (S.D. West Virginia March 16, 2018), the Court is requested to consider a spoliation sanctions motion filed in a litigation arising from a boiler explosion at a medical center. The explosion led to a lawsuit between the insurance carrier and the

ilsteam
May 18, 2018

Court Imposes $25K in Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court’s Discovery Order in NFL Video Game Case

In Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 10-cv-03328-RS-DMR, (N.D. California, April 3, 2018), the United States District Court Northern Division California determined Plaintiffs had failed to comply with Court’s discovery order in a timely fashion. Plaintiffs Michael Davis, Vince Ferragamo, and Billy DuPree, et al. (“Plaintiffs”), sued Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) for misappropriating their images

ilsteam
May 16, 2018

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence Due to Lack of Intentional Destruction

In Howard v. Bosch Thermotechnology Corp., Dist. Court (ED Missouri, Feb. 26, 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern Division in Missouri determined the Plaintiff’s demolition of their burned house was not tantamount to intentional destruction of evidence. The Howards’ house burned to the ground in November 2013. In this products liability action,

ilsteam
May 11, 2018

Court Upholds $2.7 Million Sanction on Case Valued $25,000 Because of Defendant’s ‘Persistent Discovery Misconduct’

In Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd., Nos. 16-3637-cv, 16-3726-cv (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2018), the Second Circuit found no error in the lower court’s imposition of a multi-million sanction for discovery misconduct. While defending against claims it sold counterfeit products, ePRO E-Commerce Limited (“Defendant”) engaged in persistent discovery misconduct. It did not disclose

ilsteam
May 9, 2018

Court Orders Compliance and Payment of Other Party’s Attorneys’ Fees, Costs When Party Uses Spurious Arguments Opposing Discovery

In Cen Com, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., No. C-170650-RSM, (Dist. Court WD Washington, 2018), a breach of contract case, Numerex Corp., (“Defendant”) and Cen Com, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) are businesses in the alarm-monitoring industry, and worked together for several years. That business relationship involved the Plaintiff monitoring Defendant’s accounts and responding to alarm signals from those