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
The short answer is – maybe; if there is any possibility that the information contained on the phone may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party in the lawsuit.
In this action (Brown Jordan Int’l Inc. v. Carmicle, 2015 WL 6142885 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2015)), plaintiffs sued defendant in
For a long time, New York state and federal courts were out of sync with one another with regard to a litigant’s discovery obligations. For example, the state courts in New York required a party to take steps to preserve discovery materials upon the commencement of a litigation, while the federal courts required preservation upon
After sitting on the sidelines for years, the New York Court of Appeals (the highest appellate court in New York) has finally ruled on the standard to be applied to claims alleging spoliation of ESI. The decision, however, which was late in coming, places New York at odds with the new Federal Rules of Civil