-
Motion for Sanctions Denied Based On Court’s Lack of Inherent Authority to Sanction And Where Parties Did Not Engage In A Rule 37(e) Analysis
In MONARREZ v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00431-ART-DJA (D. Nev., Feb. 22, 2023), before the court was Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions. Plaintiff argued Defendants failed to preserve the original version of the customer report incident, which would have been made on one of the Defendants’ iPads and failed
-
Court Permits Plaintiff and Defendants to Present Evidence to Jury Concerning the Loss of Relevant ESI
In WILSON v. HH SAVANNAH, LLC. TRS SAVANNAH, LLC., and HYATT CORP., No. CV420-217 (S.D. GA, July 28, 2022), before the court was Plaintiff’s request to present evidence to the jury concerning the loss of relevant ESI. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell while exiting a guestroom shower at a
-
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 Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Spoliation Finding Sufficient Specificity In Plaintiff’s Complaint
In DEAN v. CITY OF KENOVA ET AL., Civil Action No. 3:21-0197 (S.D. WV, April 19, 2022), before the Court was Defendant Bob Sullivan’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s action for spoliation. Plaintiff was the administrator of Mr. James Dean’s estate following his death. Mr. Dean was arrested on April 5,
-
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
-
Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Inferences Denied After Finding Plaintiff Lacked Sufficient Evidence
In EMERSON CREEK POTTERY, INC., v. EMERSON CREEK EVENTS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 6:20-cv-54 (W.D. VA, Feb. 18, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s eleventh-hour motion for spoliation inferences. Plaintiff contended that counsel for Defendants failed to inform Defendants of their obligation to preserve ESI, and that counsel’s failure