Klock v. Wal-Mart examines whether spoliation of video evidence occurred after a store manager claimed no video captured a slip and fall incident. The court ruled against sanctions, but this analysis questions whether the duty to preserve was properly triggered.
Violations of protective orders disqualified counsel in US Dominion, Inc. v. Byrne. The court emphasized the severity of the misconduct, which included the unauthorized dissemination of confidential documents.
The defendant in Felder v. MGM National Harbor, LLC was sanctioned for canceling key depositions just before the discovery deadline, highlighting the court's stance on fair play and proper notice in legal proceedings.
Michael Berman writes about a rare appellate decision upholding a six figure sanction against both attorneys and parties regarding eDiscovery "self-help" where opposing counsel gets a link to a folder that contains potentially confidential and privileged information and they do not notify the sender
In Fiskars Finland OY AB v. Woodland Tools Inc., 2024 WL 2504717 (W.D. Wisc. May 24, 2024), plaintiff sued for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants counterclaimed.
A motion to compel production of source code was denied as untimely and the court looked at proportionality in its opinion. A potentially viable motion was denied due to prejudicial delay in raising the issue.
Michael Berman analyzes In re StubHub Refund Litigation, 2924 WL 2305604 (N.D. Ca. May 20, 2024) where sanctions were denied regarding not producing hyperlinked documents otherwise known as modern attachments due to a "get out of jail free" clause in their ESI protocol.
In Jones v. Riot Hosp. Grp. LLC, the Ninth Circuit upheld serious consequences for the deletion of text messages in litigation. This case reminds us of the critical importance of preserving electronically stored information (ESI). If you're involved in litigation, it's crucial to follow these guidelines:
Know your duty: You are obligated to preserve any potentially relevant ESI.
Don't hit delete: Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, avoid deleting potentially relevant texts or other electronic data.
Consult experts: If there are questions about spoliation or complex ESI issues, work with e-discovery experts for guidance.
A recent case highlights the importance of clearly demonstrating "intent to deprive" to secure sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2). In Boshea v. Compass Marketing, Inc., the court denied sanctions despite the possible destruction of relevant evidence, as the plaintiff's intent to withhold information during litigation couldn't be sufficiently proven. By Michael Berman.
[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.] In Ogunsula v. Warrenfeltz, 2024 WL 298984 (D. Md. Jan. 25, 2024), the Court recognized a split of authority and addressed the interplay between Rule 37(a)’s maxim that “evasive…
Bob Dylan was cleared of tort claims by a court, and his legal team won sanctions against the accuser. The plaintiffs' attorneys missed important deadlines despite being warned, emphasizing the need to follow court orders.