-
Plaintiff Awarded $36 Million by Default Judgment Stemming from Discovery Abuses
What type of discovery abuse would justify a default judgment and entry of a $36 million damage award? In Stooksbury v. Ross, et al., No. 12-5739/12-6042/12-6230 (6th Cir. 2013), the court reviewed a case filed under the federal RICO statute regarding a fraudulent real estate claim. Plaintiff was an investor
-
Routine Deletion of Text Messages: Spoliation or Acceptable Smartphone Maintenance?
State Court Issues Notable Ruling Regarding Electronic Evidence If a defendant readily admits to deleting electronic evidence after a preservation order is in effect, plaintiff trial attorneys could be excused in thinking that a motion for sanctions should be a cut and dry issue. However, issues of spoliation of electronic
-
Negligent Spoliation Without a Showing of Prejudice: Sanctions or No?
For a recent case that offers a twist on necessary elements for spoliation sanctions, see the memorandum decision dated June 10, 2013 in Sekisui America Corp. v. Hart, 2013 WL 2951924 (S.D.N.Y.). One of the disputes at issue is whether sanctions were warranted against the plaintiff company for deleting a
-
Plaintiff Awarded $134,613 as Sanction for Late Discovery Production
What constitutes a valid excuse for late production when answering plaintiff eDiscovery and document requests? An order dated May 22, 2013 in Nuance Communications Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, et al., No. C 08-02912 JSW (N.D.Cal. 2013) considered an excuse from a defendant when ruling upon plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
-
Court Questions Probative Value of Social Media Data for Emotional Distress Claims
In our last blog, we began a discussion regarding the case Giaccehtto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District, No. CV 11-6323(ADS)(AKT)(2013 WL 2897054 (E.D.N.Y.)). In the case, the court rejected the trend requiring a “threshold evidentiary showing” of relevancy of the public portion of a social media account to gain
-
eDiscovery Question: Is Negligent Destruction of “Irrelevant” Evidence Spoliation?
Our last blog reviewed the facts in the case Cottle-Banks v. Cox Communications, 2013 WL 2244333 (S.D.Cal 2013) regarding the issue of automatic destruction of electronic data from audio tapes. Plaintiffs sought spoliation sanctions for recordings not saved after the case was filed on September 13, 2010, as defendant only
-
Plaintiffs Sought Spoliation Sanction for Deleted Audio Recordings: Warranted or Not?
In the case Cottle-Banks v. Cox Communications, 2013 WL 2244333 (S.D.Cal 2013), a court considered an electronic discovery issue of whether spoliation sanctions were warranted against the defendant for the automatic destruction of audio recordings saved as electronic data. At issue in the underlying case, filed on September 13, 2010,
-
Qui Tam Plaintiff Awarded $445,505 for ESI Costs
A common topic of interest as plaintiff eDiscovery law develops is what ESI costs and expenses can be shifted to a losing party. In the case U.S. ex rel. Becker v. Tools & Metals, Inc., Civ. No. 3:05-CV-0627-L (N.D.Tex. 2013), a qui tam plaintiff was awarded costs and expenses against
-
ESI Privilege Log at Issue in Electronic Discovery Dispute
In the case Dornouch Holdings International, LLC v. Conagra Foods Lamb Weston, Inc. (2013 WL 2384235 (D. Idaho)), the district court appointed a Special Master to review the plaintiff ESI production for privilege. After the data was screened and the privilege log was created and served upon the parties, the
-
Defendant Fails to Meet its Burden for Spoliation Allegations Against Plaintiff
All this week, our blog has been discussing the consequences of defendant’s failure to preserve evidence after a duty to preserve electronic data has been imposed. However, it is not always the defendant accused of spoliation. In the case Research Foundation of State University of New York v. Nektar Therapeutics,