Weekly Letter to Our EDRM Global Community – 22 September 2026
This week’s EDRM letter features recent blog posts, upcoming webinars, notable podcasts, and key announcements. Stay engaged with the EDRM community for the latest insights and support.
Tag sanctions
Read MoreWeekly Letter to Our EDRM Global Community – 22 September 2026
The Case of the Missing Lab Notebooks
In Terran Biosciences, Inc. v. Compass Pathfinder Limited, defendants sought sanctions over missing physical lab notebooks in a trade secrets dispute. The court found sanctions unwarranted because defendants failed to establish that the notebooks were lost after the plaintiffs’ duty to preserve arose. Michael D. Berman examines why establishing both the preservation trigger date and the timing of the loss can be dispositive in a spoliation analysis.
Cite Checking to Find Hallucinated Cases Deemed Insufficient – Part II – Verification and Candor Are Expected
Recent federal decisions emphasize that automated cite checking is not enough when AI touches legal filings. Courts expect attorneys to personally verify authorities, quotations, and cited cases, and to act candidly and promptly when errors are discovered.
Glass Houses Proverb—Don’t Throw Stones and Invective
A Court of Federal Claims judge sanctioned plaintiffs' counsel under RCFC 11 for confidently asserting settled North Carolina law without citing a single supporting case, then calling the government's correct position "frivolous." The same opinion also granted the government summary judgment on the underlying Trails Act taking.
Grant of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion Led to Denial of Defendant’s Sanctions Motion
In Flynn v. Kone, Inc., the District of Maryland denied a sanctions motion alleging failure to preserve text messages after granting summary judgment for the defendant. The decision highlights the practical impact of dispositive rulings on spoliation disputes while prompting discussion about whether courts retain inherent authority to sanction ESI spoliation following the 2015 amendments to Rule 37(e).
EEOC v. Mia Aesthetics Clinic ATL, LLC – Round III
In EEOC v. Mia Aesthetics Clinic ATL, LLC – Round III, the court rejected reliance on routine document destruction policies as a shield against spoliation sanctions and held that deposition testimony is not an adequate substitute for missing contemporaneous ESI. The decision offers important guidance on preservation duties, Rule 37(e), secondary evidence, and the continuing demise of the old “safe harbor” defense.
“Hallucinations” by West’s CoCounsel?
In U.S. v. Farris, the Sixth Circuit sanctioned appointed counsel after AI-assisted briefs generated through Westlaw CoCounsel included false quotations and misstatements of precedent. The opinion underscores that even when AI cites real authorities, lawyers must independently verify every quotation, citation, and legal proposition before filing.
Well-Reasoned “Hallucination” Analysis
A federal court decision in Brownfield v. Cherokee Co. School Dist. clarifies that failing to verify AI-generated citations can trigger Rule 11 sanctions, even for pro se litigants.
Plaintiff Sold Her Cell Phone After Litigation Commenced
In Hernandez v. DiBiaso (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2026), the court held that selling a cell phone after litigation began violated preservation duties under Rule 37(e). Although the loss of ESI caused prejudice, the court declined severe sanctions, finding no intent to deprive.
“The Fire and BPA’s Preservation of Evidence”
An Oregon federal court imposed adverse inference sanctions against BPA for willful spoliation of physical evidence and ESI following the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire. The decision analyzes when the duty to preserve is triggered and applies different standards to physical evidence and electronically stored information under Rule 37(e).
“The Court is keenly interested in whether Defendants’ counsel issued a litigation hold.”
In Jones Eagle LLC v. Ward, the court ordered “discovery on discovery” and demanded confirmation of a litigation hold after missing text messages and auto-delete settings raised Rule 37(e) concerns. The decision underscores that preservation duties rest with the preserving party, not the requesting party, and that failure to disable auto-delete may signal bad faith.
Media Reports “Dr. Phil accused of deleting incriminating texts amid bankruptcy filing….”; Accusation is Disputed
Dr. Phil faces allegations of deleting incriminating texts during a bankruptcy proceeding, according to media reports. The accusation is contested, with an appeal expected.