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 the reasonable anticipation of litigation.
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 Procedure. This post will address
In this zoning dispute involving claims of civil rights violations and tortious interference with contractual relations, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for spoliation sanctions where they could adduce
Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v John H. Rasnick, et al (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63579), reads as a list of the things you do not want to do if you want to avoid spoliation sanctions. The underlying dispute involved the development of an alcohol tracking product, and certain shareholders’ alleged conspiracy to steal the technology and start a new company.
In this lawsuit, HMS alleged that the defendants – former employees – misappropriated confidential information, including trade secrets, on behalf of their new employee, Public Consulting Group (“PCG”). When the lawsuit began, PCG promptly issued a legal hold notice to certain of its employees,
In the latest of a string of decisions relating to ediscovery spoliation, the First Department, on Jun 11, 2015, reconfirmed a basic principal of a spoliation motion: the party seeking sanctions must demonstrate that the spoliated materials were relevant to their case. This requirement must be satisfied even if the spoliation was caused by gross negligence.
In this breach of licensing agreement dispute, the Defendants sought spoliation sanctions against the Plaintiff. The sought-after sanctions included striking the complaint,…
Continue Reading Plaintiffs’ Failure to Preserve Leads to Two Adverse Inferences
In this contract dispute case, the plaintiff made a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) requesting the court strike the defendants’ answer and counterclaims, allow a negative spoliation inference against the defendants and order a monetary fine due to the plaintiff’s “repeated attempts to obtain the at-issue discovery
In this collective action seeking unpaid wages, overtime and other relief, Plaintiffs moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 37 for spoliation sanctions attributable to Defendants’ failure to preserve, and ultimately produce certain relevant employment-related evidence, including, for example payroll records and
In an earlier post (SEE reference to my top 10 list), I noted the importance of issuing a timely and proper legal hold notice. In case you failed to appreciate the critical importance of this step, a reading of the insurance case of Fidelity Nat. Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7,