Bill of Costs was Approved in Part After Finding Certain E-Discovery Costs were Reasonably Attributed to Electronic Copying and/or Transcriptions
In CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG, & REIS, CO., LPA., Case No. 1:17 CV 817 (N.D. Ohio, Eastern Div., Oct. 19, 2018), before the Court was Defendant’s Bill of Costs submitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The total costs Defendant sought
Motion To Tax Costs Denied To The Extent Certain Costs Were Part Of Non-Taxable Preparatory Steps Preceding Actual Production
CARE ONE MANAGEMENT, LLC v. UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, No. 12-6371 (SDW) (D. NJ. June 26, 2020) was a Clerk’s opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to tax costs following entry of judgment. Defendant sought, among others, costs of making copies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Defendants’ Unilateral Relevancy Redactions Leads To Monetary Sanctions
In Cuppels v. Mountaire Corporation, C.A. No.: S18C-06-009 (Del. Sup. Ct. June 29, 2020), the Delaware Superior Court awarded monetary sanctions to Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants’ inappropriate redactions. The case arose from claims made by Plaintiffs related to the operation of a chicken processing facility. Following Defendants’ motion
In Slip And Fall Case, Motion For Spoliation Of Video Denied Where No Duty to Preserve Video Arose Until After Lawsuit Was Filed
In Nguyen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 9:19-cv-80393 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020), a Florida Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of a video allegedly showing a slip-and-fall by plaintiff on the grounds that defendant had no affirmative duty to preserve the video for the nearly two-year
Magistrate Judge recommends Default Judgement against Defendants for their Wide-Scale Discovery Misconduct
In Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Adelphia Supply USA, et al., No. 15-CV-5826(CBA)(LB) (E.D.N.Y May 2, 2019), a New York Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for case ending sanctions be granted on the grounds that Defendants course of conduct presented “a cautionary tale about how not to conduct discovery
Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Establishes ESI Search Protocol to Address Such Motion
In Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., No. 18-1100-EFM-ADM (D. Kan. April 26, 2019), a Kansas Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering Defendant to produce documents related to two requests and, with regard to a third request, ordered Defendant to produce documents “to
ND Cal. Holds that Searching Thirty-Thirty Custodians Not Proportional to Case’s Needs
In Alta Devices, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-00404-LHK (VKD)(N.D. Ca. Feb. 20, 2019), the court denied Plaintiff’s motion to require Defendant to conduct ESI searches across thirty-three custodial files, finding that Plaintiff’s request was not proportional to the needs of the case. In its motion, the Plaintiff
Defendants Sanctioned in Prince Music Dispute for Wiping Cell Phones
In Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc., et al., v. George Ian Boxill, et al., No. 17-cv-1212 (D. Min. Mar. 4, 2019), a Minnesota magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence on the grounds that Defendants acted with an intent to
Plaintiff Spoliated Data When He Intentionally Deleted Data from Laptop
In Postle v. SilkRoad Technology, Inc., Civil No. 18-cv-224-JL (D. NH Feb. 19, 2019), the court granted Defendant’s motion for spoliation-related sanctions after Plaintiff intentionally deleted ESI from his work-issued laptop before returning it to Defendant. Defendant SilkRoad employed Plaintiff Postle in an information-technology role for about fifteen years. In
Plaintiff Sanctioned for Intentionally Spoliating Cell Phone Evidence
In employment discrimination case Brewer v. Leprino Foods Company, Inc., No CV-1:16-1091-SMM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019), the Eastern District of California granted Defendant’s motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2), finding that Plaintiff “acted with the intent to deprive” Defendant of certain relevant ESI. The sanction motion