In past blogs, I have discussed the importance of issuing a litigation hold notice (“Hold”), as soon as a litigation is reasonably anticipated. I have also written about various best practices when drafting one’s Hold. [See Practical Tips For an Effective Litigation Hold Notice and Your Litigation Hold Must be Generally Broad And Specifically
Mueller v. Swift, (D. Col. 2017) 2017 WL 2362137
Some opinions just have it all, and Mueller v. Swift does not disappoint! Indeed, in this lawsuit, Taylor Swift, the pop sensation who has been sweeping the nation, alleges she was the victim of sexual misconduct, assault, and battery.
What in the world do such
According to the Complaint filed in Michael Distefano and Nicole Distefano v Law Offices of Barbara H. Katsos, PC and Barbara H. Katsos, Michael DiStefano and a non-party were owners of a limited liability company that was the franchisee of three Cold Stone Creamery Inc. ice cream parlors. In 2006, the three stores suffered financial
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 sexual harassment case, because of her intentional deletion of a recorded conversation relevant to her allegations. While the court
In Arrowhead Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126545 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2016), District Judge Katherine Polk Failla imposed significant sanctions upon both the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and the lawyer for defendant Seven Arts Entertainment Inc. (“SAE”).
Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. (“Arrowhead”) sued SAE in 2014
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (along with others — Rules 1, 16, 26 and 34) was amended, effective December 1, 2015.
The amendment to Rule 37(e) was intended, in part, to ensure practitioners/litigants were fully aware of their preservation obligations, to ensure a uniformity of sanctions imposed upon parties and practitioners who failed to
We all know that it can be damaging to one’s case if a party to a litigation fails to preserve relevant information. But when, exactly, does one’s duty to preserve (potentially relevant information) arise? And what type of sanctions are federal courts imposing under the amended federal rules for preservation failures?
When Does One’s Duty
In a trademark infringement case pending in the Northern District of California (InternMatch v. Nxtbigthing, 2016 WL 491483 [N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016]), plaintiff requested copies of any documents relating to the defendants’ defense that it had continually and pervasively used the trademark at issue. The defendants were not able to produce
In Brown Jordan Int’l v. Carmicle, 2016 WL 815827 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2016) – a case previously written about on February 11, 2016 the Court was required to determine whether certain actions taken by Christopher Carmicle (“Carmicle”), a high-ranking employee running two subsidiaries of an international furniture company, warranted termination of his
As most of those reading this are aware, companies/entities/agencies doing business in the US generally are not required to indefinitely preserve business records and information. However, those companies/entities/agencies must preserve relevant information when a lawsuit or an investigation is reasonably anticipated. This duty stems from both the common law duty to prevent spoliation of evidence