-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
No Spoliation by US Department of Labor Based on Sovereign Immunity
In O’Toole v. Acosta, No. 14-cv-2467, (N.D. Illinois, 2018), Plaintiff Thomas O’Toole sued his former employer, the Department of Labor (“DOL”), for alleged spoliation of evidence under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Defendant moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff worked for DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) as a statistician
-
Court Considers Spoliation Sanction Motion Re Loss of Photographs Taken by Adjuster in Insurance Claim Case
In Keathley v. Grange Insurance Company of Michigan, No. 15-cv-11888, (E.D. Mich. 2018), the United States District Court E.D. Michigan, Southern Division considers the Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions. Plaintiff Timika Keathley submitted an insurance loss claim under Defendant Grange Insurance Company of Michigan’s policy, for a loss she alleges arose
-
Court Grants Plaintiff Motion for Spoliation Sanctions After Defendant Nurse Disposes of Contemporaneous Accident Notes
In Alicea v. Continental Casualty Company, No. 15-1941-PAD-BJM, (D. Puerto Rico, 2018), Sandra Cruz Vargas Alicea, Brian Rafael Cruz Vargas, Steven José Cruz Vargas, and Michael Ruben Cruz Vargas (collectively “Plaintiffs”) moved for spoliation sanctions against Continental Casualty Company, Bio-Medical Applications of Ponce, Inc., John Doe, Inc. and ABC Insurance