News & Analysis as of

Sanctions Discovery

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 Inc. 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 Inc. 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 Inc. 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 Inc. 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

Plaintiff’s Erasure of iPhone Before Forensic Examination Leads to Recommended Dismissal of Case: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Coyne v. Los Alamos National Security, LLC et. al., No. 15-0054 (D. N.M., Mar. 21, 2017), New Mexico Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen recommended that the court grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss after the plaintiff’s...more

Court Tells Litigants “NO MORE WARNINGS” When It Comes to Boilerplate Discovery Objections: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc., C 14-3041-MWB (N.D. Iowa Mar. 13, 2017), Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett declined to sanction the parties for issuing boilerplate objections, but strongly warned them...more

After Metadata Shows Agreement Documents to Be Unreliable, Defendant’s “Hans” are Tied: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Ensing v. Ensing, et. al., No. 12591 (Del. Court of Chancery, Mar. 6, 2017), Vice Chancellor Slights ruled for the plaintiff in the case and concluding that the defendant “has engaged in blatant violations of court orders...more

Should Failing to Issue a Litigation Hold Be Considered Intent to Deprive?: eDiscovery Best Practices

by CloudNine on

A lot has been discussed about the most recent changes to the Federal Rules, especially with regard to Rule 37(e) and the requirement of the intent to deprive standard to apply more serious sanctions. But, what activities...more

White House Allegedly Purges Electronic Devices after Order to Preserve Data: An E-Discovery Teachable Moment

by Exterro, Inc. on

According to an article published in the Independent, allegations have arisen surrounding “White House officials and members of Donald Trump’s transition team…reportedly ‘purging’ their electronic devices to avoid being...more

Hip Implant MDL Denies Summary Judgment on Claims of Plaintiffs Who Failed to Preserve Explanted Devices

by Reed Smith on

Regular readers of this blog know that we have a pretty jaded view of many MDLs. Obviously consolidation makes sense, at least on paper, in terms of efficiency and the best use of scarce court resources. But, in practice,...more

Delaware Supreme Court Affirms $7 Million Sanction for Discovery Misconduct: eDiscovery Case Law

by CloudNine on

In Shawe v. Elting, Case No. 487, 2016 (Supreme Court of Delaware, Feb. 13, 2017), the Delaware Supreme Court found that the Court of Chancery followed the correct legal standards and made no errors of law in its sanctions...more

"The E-Discovery Digest - March 2017"

The sixth 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. Please see...more

Why Courts Should Not Go 'Over and Above' the Federal Rules to Impose Sanctions for Loss of ESI

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

A recent case offers a cautionary tale of how courts may cite to the requirements of amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which governs imposing sanctions for failure to preserve electronically stored information...more

Judge Finds Defense Counsel’s Reliance upon Pre-Amendment Rule 26 in a Motion to Compel the Equivalent of Bad Faith – Resulting in...

by Farrell Fritz, P.C. on

In Fulton v. Livingston Financial LLC, 2016 WL 3976558 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2016), U.S. District Judge James L. Robart sanctioned a defense lawyer who “inexcusabl[y]” relied on outdated case law and pre-2015 amendments to...more

126 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.