Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Sanctions

The Fifth Annual Gibbons E-Discovery Conference Kicks Off with an Interactive and Thought-Provoking Overview of the Past Year’s Pivotal E-Discovery Case Decisions

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules / Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On November 16, 2011

The Fifth Annual Gibbons E-Discovery Conference kicked off with an interactive overview of the important judicial decisions from 2011 that shaped and redefined the e-discovery landscape. Before an audience of general and in-house counsel, representing companies throughout the tri-state area, the esteemed panel of speakers, including Michael R. Arkfeld, Paul E. Asfendis, and Mara E. Zazzali-Hogan, moderated by Scott J. Etish, tackled the issues faced by the courts over the past year. Through a series of hypotheticals, the panelists and attendees analyzed and discussed how to handle the tough e-discovery issues that arose and how the courts’ decisions again reshaped the e-discovery landscape as we know it. Litigation hold protocols and spoliation concerns, the use of social media in discovery with its attendant ethical concerns, and the use of social media and the Internet in the courtroom were the hot topics of the day. This interactive overview of the past year’s hot button, e-discovery issues was an instant success and clearly set the tone for the remainder of the conference.

ABA Formal Opinion 11-460 is at Odds With Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc.

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On October 25, 2011

The American Bar Association recently published Formal Opinion 11-460 to provide guidance to attorneys regarding their ethical duty upon discovering emails between a third party and the third party’s attorney. The Opinion interprets Model Rule 4.4(b) literally, concluding that neither that rule nor any other requires an attorney to notify opposing counsel of receipt of potentially privileged communications. The Opinion is of particular note because it directly contradicts the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency. Inc. 201 N.J. 300 (2010).

E-Discovery Sanctions May Be Entered and Have Consequences Long After Litigation Concludes

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On September 27, 2011

Even after a particular case has concluded, the risk of sanctions arising from e-discovery violations persists. Green v. Blitz U.S.A. was one of many products liability suits alleging injuries resulting from the defendant’s failure to equip its gas can with a “flame arrester.” Over a year after the conclusion of the trial and entry of final judgment in Green, the court entered monetary and non-monetary sanctions against the defendant for its failure to adequately preserve and identify potentially relevant documents. Because the matter had closed, many of the non-monetary sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) were not available. Accordingly, the court fashioned a creative non-monetary sanction requiring the defendant (1) to provide the sanctions opinion to all plaintiffs in any litigation against the defendant for the prior 2 years; and (2) to file the opinion with any court in any new lawsuit in which the defendant is a party for 5 years following entry of the opinion.

DuPont v. Kolon: A Lesson In How To Avoid Sanctions For Spoliation Of Evidence

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On September 6, 2011

Two recent decisions in the same case illustrate that, when it comes to imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence, what matters is not simply whether you’ve intentionally deleted relevant evidence, but how you go about deleting it, and what the record reflects about your intentions. Although both the plaintiff and the defendant in E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:09cv58, demonstrated that the other intentionally destroyed relevant evidence, as is detailed below, the Court sanctioned only defendant Kolon Industries, Inc. (“Kolon”) based on its manifest bad faith (read the decision here). As is discussed in an earlier post on Gibbons’ E-Discovery Law Alert (which you can read here), plaintiff E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) escaped a similar fate based on its demonstrable good faith. In short, this case teaches that the intentional deletion of relevant evidence does not per se lead to sanctions. Rather, the parties’ conduct — or misconduct, as the case may be — must be judged contextually.

How a “Stink Bomb” E-Mail and Its Proof That Facebook Pictures Were Deleted Might Have Blown Up a $10.6 Million Verdict

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On August 8, 2011

Parties in all types of cases often post pictures and messages on Facebook that might be detrimental to their cases. After his wife died tragically in an automobile accident, and he brought a wrongful death case, Isaiah Lester did just that when he posted a photo of himself wearing an “I [love] hot moms” t-shirt and garter belt on his head while he had a beer in hand. That was his first bad choice.

Motion for Sanctions Denied Due to DuPont’s Reasonable, Professional Efforts to Implement and Update Litigation Hold Notices

by

Posted in Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On July 5, 2011

On April 27, 2011, the Court denied Defendant Kolon Industries, Inc.’s (“Kolon”) motion for sanctions against E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) for alleged spoliation of four employees’ e-mail accounts and documents in litigation regarding trade secret misappropriation, theft of confidential information and other related business torts. E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:09cv58, 2011 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2011). In essence, the Court concluded there was no spoliation because DuPont’s efforts to implement and update litigation hold notices – as well as the company’s commitment to its electronic discovery obligations – were reasonable.

The Rising Tide of Sanctions for E-Discovery Failures

by

Posted in Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On March 21, 2011

To echo a popular tag line frequently heard on Top 40 radio stations, when it comes to court-imposed sanctions for e-discovery failures, “the hits just keep on comin’!” According to a recent study published in the Duke Law Journal, sanctions for e-discovery violations are occurring more frequently than ever. Dan H. Willoughby, Jr., Rose Hunter Jones, Gregory R. Antine, Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By The Numbers, 60 Duke Law J. 789 (2010). However, there may be light at the end of the tunnel, as it appears that the frequency of sanctions awards is trending downward after hitting an all-time high in 2009.

Davis v. Grant Park Holds That Sanctions Motions for Breach of Duty to Preserve Electronic Communications are Premature Until the Close of Discovery

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules / Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On February 22, 2011

Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola recently struck down, without prejudice, a motion for sanctions for the alleged destruction of electronic communications, finding it “premature to consider the question of sanctions until discovery ends and the Court can assess accurately what prejudice, if any, the loss of the electronically stored information has caused.” Davis v. Grant Park, No. 08-cv-1764 (PLF/JMF), 2010 U.S. Dist. (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2010). Deeming the assessment of prejudice the critical issue, and citing D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., No. 06-cv-687 (JDB/JMF), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86711, at *11 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010) (Facciola, J.), Judge Facciola determined that “the nature and extent of the loss suffered” could not be “accurately gauged” until “all the information that is available” is gathered, which occurs at the close of discovery. Id. at *3. As such, the court directed plaintiff to decide whether to renew the motion after discovery ended, noting further that a renewed motion should “show as clearly as possible the nature of the prejudice,” and that defendant’s submission should “make a similarly precise showing in opposition.” Id. at *4. The decision is consistent with D’Onofrio, wherein Judge Facciola instructed, “[i]t is only after establishing the prejudice the plaintiff suffered that any resulting sanction will fairly address that prejudice, consistent with this Circuit’s insistence that any sanctions imposed be a function of the prejudice done to a party by its offending opponent.” 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86711, at *11 (citing Bonds v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 801, 808 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). Judge Facciola’s directive serves as an important reminder to litigants that any sanctions imposed should ultimately bear a relationship to the prejudice suffered by the other party, and that such prejudice may not be discernable until the close of discovery in a contested matter.

Orbit One: Inadequate ESI Preservation Does Not Merit Sanctions Absent Evidence That Relevant Information Has Been Destroyed

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 14, 2011

Orbit One Communications, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2010 WL 4615547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010) represents a dichotomy in jurisprudence on ESI preservation efforts and the imposition of automatic sanctions. In Orbit One, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV found that regardless of how inadequate a litigant’s preservation efforts may be, sanctions are not appropriate without proof that “information of significance” has been lost. The court determined that the threshold determination must be “whether any material that has been destroyed was likely relevant even for purposes of discovery.” In so holding, the court discussed and diverged from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s decision in Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, which earlier held that sanctions may be warranted for inadequate preservation efforts even if no relevant evidence is lost. 685 F. Supp.2d 456, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

New York Courts Address ESI Inconsistencies at State and Federal Level: An Erie Solution?

by

Posted in Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On January 3, 2011

A panel of New York state and federal judges recently convened to discuss the differing standards between New York state and federal law governing the pre-litigation preservation of ESI and to make recommendations to resolve such inconsistencies. The panel’s findings are reported in the publication, Harmonizing the Pre-Litigation Obligation to Preserve Electronically Stored Information in New York State and Federal Courts. The critical issue is determining when a litigant’s duty to preserve ESI is triggered, how that duty is fulfilled, and the potential consequences for breaching the duty. The panel recognized that the disparate treatment that litigants may receive in New York state courts versus federal courts could lead to a great deal of confusion and uncertainty, even for parties that cautiously implement ESI strategies with an eye towards future litigation. For example, the trend in New York federal courts has been in favor of the adoption of per se culpability when determining a litigant’s state of mind. In Zubulake, the court held that once the duty to preserve ESI attached, any destruction of documents would be, at a minimum, negligent. In Pension Committee, the court held that failure to issue a written litigation hold constituted “gross negligence.” State courts, on the other hand, have largely declined to adopt such per se rules, preferring instead to analyze a litigant’s culpability on a case-by-case basis, as the courts did in cases such as Deer Park and Ecor Solutions.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Archived Blog Posts