Electronic discovery cases that made headlines in 2017 featured well-known names such as Taylor Swift and Lynyrd Skynyrd, and reached all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the year draws to a close, it’s a good time to...more
The US Supreme Court examined the inherent authority of the court to apply sanctions for discovery misconduct....more
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
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
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
In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, plaintiffs asserted a products liability claim against Goodyear for a tire failure. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, after which plaintiffs discovered that Goodyear did...more
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
On April 18, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15-1406, holding that when a federal court exercises its inherent authority to sanction bad-faith conduct by ordering a...more
In recent years, discussions regarding the contours of a federal court’s inherent authority to sanction litigants for bad-faith behavior have been heating up faster than a defective tire at highway speeds. In the 2015...more