News & Analysis as of

Discovery Sanctions

Bullet-Point Update: The Latest in Electronic and Federal Court Discovery Issues

by Carlton Fields on

Cloud Computing - Use this to convince your clients that their cloud storage will be discoverable: PC Connection, Inc. v. Mereos, 2017 WL 1078121 (D. Md. March 22, 2017)(Awarding emergency injunction requiring independent...more

Failure to Prove ‘Intent to Deprive’ Web Browser History Robs Plaintiff of Sanctions

by Zapproved LLC on

Eshelman v. Puma Biotech., Inc., No. 7:16-CV-18-D, 2017 WL 2483800 (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017). In this defamation case, the court denied a jury instruction for spoliation where the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant...more

The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Sanctions to Compensation, Not Punishment

by Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

It is not every day the U.S. Supreme Court pays attention to matters that affect the practice of discovery, but that day came with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct 1178 (April 18, 2017). Writing...more

Magistrate Advises Serious Sanctions Against Trading School Owner Greg Gramalegui for Bad Faith Discovery Violations

by Zapproved LLC on

Magistrate Advises Sanctions Against Gramalegui for Discovery Violations - U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Gramalegui, No. 15-cv-02313-REB-GPG (D. Colo. June 14, 2017). For over two years, the defendant,...more

Court Declines to Impose Sanctions for Failure to Preserve Web History: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-18-D (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017), North Carolina Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., among other rulings, denied the plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting a jury...more

A District Court’s Discretion to Sanction Is Broad, “But For” a Causal Limitation

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger that even a district court’s exercise of broad discretion to impose a civil sanction for a litigant’s bad faith conduct has to be limited by a...more

Surreptitious Cyber-Conduct Results In New York County Decision Striking Defendant’s Answer

by Farrell Fritz, P.C. on

In a decision dated May 26, 2017, Justice Chan of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, struck the defendant’s answer. Although the Court acknowledged that the imposition of this particular sanction...more

Spolier Alert Part II: Federal Courts

by Fox Rothschild LLP on

I previously blogged on the spoliation of evidence in Florida courts. In federal cases, federal law governs the imposition of sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Federal courts may consider state law in deciding whether...more

With Ample Evidence of Bad Faith, Court Sanctions Defendant for Failure to Produce Documents: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In CrossFit, Inc. v. Nat’l Strength and Conditioning Assn., No. 14cv1191 JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2017), California District Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted the plaintiff’s motion for several issue, evidentiary, and...more

The E-Discovery Digest - June 2017

The seventh edition of The E-Discovery Digest focuses on recent decisions addressing the scope and application of the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, spoliation, and discovery responses....more

Court Grants Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants for Intentional Spoliation: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Omnigen Research et. al. v. Wang et. al., No. 16-00268 (D. Oregon, May 23, 2017), Oregon District Judge Michael J. McShane granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions and agreed to issue an Order of...more

Supreme Court Says Attorney Fees Must Be Causally Linked to Misconduct

by Zapproved LLC on

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15-1406 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2017). The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous opinion resolving a split in the circuit courts about what attorney fees courts can award for misconduct...more

Despite Parties’ “Significant Animosity”, Court Orders Them to Meet and Confer: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Elhannon LLC v. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., No. 2:14-cv-262 (D. Vermont, Apr. 18, 2017), Vermont District Judge William K. Sessions, III granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel,...more

A Federal Court’s Award Of Attorneys’ Fees As A Sanction For Bad-Faith Conduct Cannot Be Punitive

by Farrell Fritz, P.C. on

Most practitioners are familiar with the federal sanction powers as codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e., Rules 11, 26, 30 and 37). However, all federal courts also possess inherent sanction power that is...more

Court Orders Specific Discovery After Complete ‘Breakdown’ Between Parties

by Zapproved LLC on

In Bird v. Wells Fargo, the Court Orders Specific Discovery After Process Breaks Down - Bird v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 16-1130 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017). In this case, the discovery process broke down so completely...more

Summaries of All Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases Decided Since Jun. 1, 2016

This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. Please see full publication below for more information....more

California Ordered to Immediately Pay Attorneys’ Fees in ‘Targate’ Case

by Zapproved LLC on

United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-05097-FMO (PLAx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017). In this case, a plaintiff’s failure to properly issue and confirm legal holds led to the spoliation of evidence and...more

Invincea and Lead Counsel Pay for Late Discovery Despite Case Settlement

by Zapproved LLC on

Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc., No. 2:15cv162 (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2017). This case, Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc., underscores the risks of failing to meet clear and timely e-discovery requirements set by the court....more

Court Says Rule 37(e) Doesn’t Apply When Recording Was Intentionally Deleted: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Hsueh v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Fin. Services, No. 15 Civ. 3401 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017), New York District Judge Paul A. Crotty relied upon inherent authority to impose sanctions and determined “that an adverse...more

Federal Courts Lack Inherent Authority to Punish Discovery Misconduct

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

Federal courts have broad authority to manage discovery, but when it comes to punishing litigants for discovery violations, their inherent authority is limited by rule and now Supreme Court precedent. Recently, the U.S....more

SCOTUS Reverses and Remands Circuit Court Award of Fees for Discovery Misconduct: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision delivered by Justice Kagan reversed and remanded the decision by the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, for...more

U.S. Supreme Court Draws the Line: Invalidates $2.7 Million Dollar Discovery Sanction Against Manufacturer

On April 18, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court made a bold and seemingly manufacturer-friendly pronouncement in overturning a federal district court judge’s $2.7 million award in sanctions against manufacturer Goodyear Tire &...more

Unwired v. Apple: District Court Sanctions Unwired for Failing to Produce Supplemental Information after Remand

During this patent infringement action, Apple filed a motion for discovery sanctions based on a failure to produce documents after a remand. The parties apparently had agreed to limited discovery post-remand, but a dispute...more

Court Affirms Sanctions Order Against Fiduciary Due To Discovery Abuses

by Winstead PC on

In Eng v. Kolbe, a mother sued her daughter for abusing a power of attorney document. No. 03-15-00409-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2680 (Tex. App.—Austin March 30, 2017). The daughter was assisting her aging parents with their...more

Court’s Inherent Sanction Powers – Not Rule 37(e) – Govern when Relevant Information (ESI included) is Intentionally Deleted

by Farrell Fritz, P.C. on

In Hsueh v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Fin. Servs., (No. 15 Civ. 3401 [PAC], 2017 WL 1194706 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017]) the Southern District imposed spoliation sanctions (specifically, an adverse inference) on the plaintiff in a...more

136 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.