September Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
|
|
- Nathaniel Cooper
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE September Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Texas Supreme Court decision announcing the procedures to apply in addressing spoliation claims and holding that a trial court abused its discretion in giving a spoliation instruction regarding the defendant s alleged failure to preserve potentially relevant surveillance footage; 2. A Southern District of New York ruling ordering an adverse inference instruction based on defendants negligent failure to issue a timely litigation hold and the subsequent destruction of documents that would have been favorable to the plaintiff s case; and 3. A Middle District of Florida order denying without prejudice plaintiff s renewed motion to compel because the plaintiff failed to comply with the local rule s meet and confer requirements prior to filing the renewed motion. 1. In Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 2014 WL (Tex. July 3, 2014), the Texas Supreme Court used a slip and fall case to announce the procedures to apply in resolving spoliation claims and held that a trial court abused its discretion in giving a spoliation instruction regarding the defendant s alleged failure to preserve potentially relevant surveillance footage, finding, inter alia, that the defendant did not act with the requisite intent to conceal such evidence. The plaintiff in the underlying case was injured after slipping and falling at one of the defendant s grocery stores. Id. at *2. After he informed the defendant of the incident five days later, the defendant retained and copied an 8-minute segment of the surveillance footage of the area where the fall occurred, starting just before [the plaintiff] entered the store and concluding shortly after his fall. Id. The following week, the plaintiff requested a copy of the footage of the fall, but the defendant denied his request. Id. at *3. The remaining footage on the two-and-a-half hour security tape was overwritten after 30 days in accordance with the defendant s usual practice. Id. Nearly one year later, the defendant who had not yet filed suit again requested the footage, this time through his attorney, but the defendant was unable to comply with the request because the footage had been overwritten. Id. The plaintiff thereafter sued the defendant and argued that the defendant s failure to preserve the full tape which the plaintiff alleged would have been helpful to the key issue of whether the spill was on the floor long enough to give [the defendant] a reasonable opportunity to discover it amounted to spoliation. Id. The trial court submitted the issue to the jury for determination, allowing the submission of Sidley Austin provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, ; One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, ; and 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C ,
2 Page 2 evidence and providing a jury instruction on the issue, and the jury ultimately awarded the plaintiff more than $1 million in damages. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its handling of the spoliation issue. Id. The defendant appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Texas. See Id. Writing for the Court, Justice Debra H. Lehrmann reviewed the history of the development of spoliation sanctions under Texas law and stated: Because we have never crafted a complete analytical framework for determining whether an act of spoliation has occurred, we first focus on the elements that must be satisfied to warrant a finding of spoliation and the corresponding imposition of an appropriate remedy. As an initial matter, however, we address whether it is the responsibility of the trial court or the jury to make this determination. Id. at *6. The Court explained that a spoliation analysis under Texas law involves a two-step judicial process. Id. at *1. First, the trial court must determine, as a question of law, whether a party spoliated evidence. Id. To make that determination, the trial court must find that (i) the spoliating party had a duty to preserve the evidence and (ii) the party intentionally or negligently breached that duty by failing to do so. Id. The duty to preserve arises only when a party knows or reasonably should know that there is a substantial chance that a claim will be filed and that evidence in its possession or control will be material and relevant to that claim, and the evidence must be material and relevant. Id. at *7 (internal quotations omitted). Second, if spoliation occurred, the [trial] court must assess the appropriate remedy. Id. at *1. Although trial courts have wide discretion in imposing sanctions for spoliation, the remedy must be proportionate such that it relate[s] directly to the conduct giving rise to the sanction and may not be excessive. Id. The [k]ey considerations in assessing potential sanctions are the spoliating party s level of culpability and the prejudice to the nonspoliating party. Id. Additionally, to warrant the harsh remedy of a spoliation jury instruction, the trial court must find that the spoliating party acted with the specific intent of concealing discoverable evidence, and that a less severe remedy would be insufficient to reduce the prejudice caused by the spoliation. Id. at *2. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion in (i) allowing the submission of evidence regarding the alleged spoliation and (ii) charging the jury with deciding the issue. Id. at *14. As spoliation is an evidentiary concept and not a separate cause of action, Justice Lehrmann explained that the trial court not the jury must determine whether spoliation occurred and, if so, the appropriate sanction. Id. at *7. The Court found that there was no evidence that [the defendant overwrote the tape] with the requisite intent to conceal or destroy relevant evidence or that [the plaintiff] was irreparably deprived of any meaningful ability to present his claim. Id. at *14. Specifically, Justice Lehrmann noted that the defendant had preserved what it believed was the relevant portion of the tape and did not anticipate a lawsuit. Id. Supporting those findings was the fact that the plaintiff s initial request for the footage encompassed only video of the fall, which the plaintiff had preserved. Id. In short, the Court determined there was simply no evidence that [the defendant] saved the amount of footage that it did in a purposeful effort to conceal relevant evidence. Id. Finally, Justice Lehrmann noted that other evidence was available to the plaintiff to support his slip-and-fall claim and that the trial court s error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. Id. at *14-*15. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for a new trial in accordance with its opinion. Id. at *2.
3 Page 3 2. In Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc., 2014 WL (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014), U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ordered an adverse inference instruction based on defendants negligent failure to issue a timely litigation hold and the subsequent destruction of documents that would have been favorable to the plaintiff s case. Geoffrey Osberg initiated an action against his employer, Foot Locker, claiming that it had violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in converting its defined benefit plan for employees to a cash balance plan. Lawsuits raising similar issues relating to the pension plan conversion had been filed against Foot Locker by other plaintiffs in June and November Osberg brought his lawsuit in November 2006, voluntarily dismissed that complaint on February 12, 2007 and then filed the current suit on February 23, Id. at *1- *2. Despite these different actions alleging the same basic claims, Foot Locker did not issue a litigation hold until October The plaintiff brought a motion for spoliation, asserting that Foot Locker had destroyed documents in bad faith and that these documents would have assisted plaintiff. In the course of discovery, defendants were unable to locate certain materials relating to the pension plan changes, and plaintiffs claimed that 141 boxes of documents that may have contained relevant documents were destroyed, including, inter alia, boxes containing documents identified as Cash Balance Plan Presentation, Pension Plan R[etirement] I[nvestment] C[ommittee], and Benefit Comparisons Id. Discussing the relevant spoliation standards, Judge Forrest stated that a party seeking sanctions must establish (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind; and (3) that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense. Id. at *4 (quoting Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002)). In this case, Judge Forrest held that a sanction against defendants was appropriate [b]ecause defendants were under an obligation to preserve evidence, yet negligently failed to implement a litigation hold and negligently destroyed documents that likely were relevant to this litigation. Osberg, 2014 WL , at *9. First, the court determined that Foot Locker was under an obligation to preserve the documents. The documents related to the creation of Foot Locker s new retirement plan, and thus to the question of whether defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA. Id. at *5. Thus, the court concluded, Foot Locker should have issued a litigation hold in June or July 2006 based on the original lawsuit filed at that time, Foot Locker s own guidelines that required issuance of a litigation hold, and the advice of outside counsel that recommended a litigation hold. Second, the court found that the destruction of evidence was not done in bad faith but that defendants were negligent. Judge Forrest determined that the failure to timely issue a litigation hold was inadvertent, as Foot Locker employees had mistakenly thought that others were responsible for the hold notice, and defendants sought in good faith to determine whether documents had been lost. Foot Locker knew, however, it had been sued, its own internal guidelines required the retention of documents, and it had been advised by outside counsel to preserve documents. Based on these facts, the court ruled that Foot Locker s failure to issue a litigation hold in 2006 was negligent. Id. at *7. Third, the court determined that the plaintiff had presented sufficient extrinsic evidence, such as other documents and deposition testimony, that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the missing documents
4 Page 4 would have been favorable to his claims. For example, portions of a cabinet drawer of documents belonging to a Foot Locker manager who helped create the challenged employee plan were missing, along with documents from the 141 destroyed boxes with document identifiers specifically related to the cash balance plan. Id. at *7-*8. The defendants pointed to spreadsheets and box ID slips to argue that the documents from the missing boxes were not relevant, but the court rejected this argument because these identifiers were based not on the actual contents of the boxes but on secondary sources and appear to have been prepared by personnel at the storage facility. Id. at *9. Given the evidence presented, Judge Forrest ruled that the record indicated that the missing documents would have been of the nature alleged by the party affected by its destruction. Id. (quoting Residential Funding Corp., 306 F.3d at 109). Judge Forrest concluded that an adverse inference instruction was appropriate because defendants destruction of documents was due to simple negligence rather than gross negligence or bad faith, and deferred consideration of the wording of the instruction until later in the case. Osberg, 2014 WL , at * In American Registry, LLC v. Hanaw, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014), U.S. Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando denied the plaintiff s renewed motion to compel due to plaintiff s failure to meet and confer with defendant with respect to the renewed motion as required by local rule. In this trade secrets case, the plaintiff had complied with the local rule requiring a meet and confer conference prior to filing its first motion to compel, but not before filing the renewed motion seeking full and complete responses to various requests. Id. at *1 (citing renewed motion). In the interim, defendants counsel learned that defendants had produced more than 3,000 documents in prior, related litigation between the parties. Id. at *2. Defendants argued that, [p]articularly in light of these circumstances, plaintiff was required to confer again with defendants before filing its renewed motion. Id. at *2 (citing defendants response). Magistrate Judge Mirando noted that the plaintiff was required to comply with the local rule, but did not place any weight on the circumstances, holding simply that [t]he rule does not except renewed motions. Id. at *2-*3. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Mirando denied plaintiff s renewed motion to compel without prejudice. * * * If you have any questions regarding this update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually work. The E-Discovery Task Force of Sidley Austin LLP The legal framework in litigation for addressing the explosion in electronic communications has been in flux for a number of years. Sidley Austin LLP has established an E-Discovery Task Force to stay abreast of and advise clients on this shifting legal landscape. An inter-disciplinary group of more than 25 lawyers across all our domestic offices, the Task Force monitors and examines issues and developments in the law regarding electronic discovery. The Task Force works seamlessly with our firm s Litigators who regularly defend and prosecute all types of litigation matters in trial and appellate courts, federal and state agencies, arbitrations, and mediations throughout the country. The co-chairs of the E-Discovery Task Force are: Alan C. Geolot ( , ageolot@sidley.com), Colleen M. Kenney ( , ckenney@sidley.com), and Jeffrey C. Sharer ( , jsharer@sidley.com). To receive future copies of this and other Sidley updates via , please sign up at
5 Page 5 BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS GENEVA HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Sidley Austin refers to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships as explained at
February Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
FEBRUARY 12, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE February Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery The January 2015 Case Notes discuss the following: 1. A Nebraska federal court decision citing the proportionality
More informationApril Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
APRIL 16, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE April Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A
More informationCalifornia Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Brinker Clarifying Employers Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks to Hourly Employees
APRIL 13, 2012 CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT & LABOR UPDATE California Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Brinker Clarifying Employers Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks to Hourly Employees In one of the most anticipated
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:13-cv-00046-CCE-LPA Document 24 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationAugust Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
AUGUST 15, 2014 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE August Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1.
More informationJune Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JUNE 16, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE June Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. An
More informationFINRA and MSRB Issue Guidance on Best Execution Obligations in Equity, Options and Fixed Income Markets
DECEMBER 9, 2015 SIDLEY UPDATE FINRA and MSRB Issue Guidance on Best Execution Obligations in Equity, Options and Fixed Income Markets Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) and the Municipal
More informationJanuary Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JANUARY 16, 2014 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE January Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationSupreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions
Supreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions The Supreme Court Holds That EEOC s Conciliation Efforts Are Subject to Judicial Review, Albeit Narrow SUMMARY A unanimous Supreme
More informationTHE INCREASING RISK OF SANCTIONS FOR ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE IN E-DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE
White Paper Series February 2006 THE INCREASING RISK OF SANCTIONS FOR ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE IN E-DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE The law is continuously carving out and redefining the boundaries of electronic document
More informationACCOUNTANTS LIABILITY UPDATE
JULY 14, 2010 ACCOUNTANTS LIABILITY UPDATE Accountants Liability Practice With highly skilled and experienced lawyers in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., we are able
More informationJuly Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JULY 16, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE July Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A U.S.
More informationProposed Changes to Federal Rule 37(e)
Young Lawyers Preservation of Electronically Stored Information By Jennifer Ecklund and Janelle L. Davis Proposed Changes to Federal Rule 37(e) The proposed rule could go a long way toward providing certainty
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-EMC Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, No. C-- EMC 0 v. JOE NAVASCA, Plaintiff, Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION
More informationFILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 150225-U NO. 4-15-0225
More informationto add a number of affirmative defenses, including an allegation that Henry s claim was barred
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed May 11, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00616-CV DOROTHY HENRY, Appellant V. BASSAM ZAHRA, Appellee On Appeal from the
More informationE-DISCOVERY UPDATE. Notable E-Discovery Cases and Events
JULY 6, 2010 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE E-Discovery Task Force Update The legal framework in litigation for addressing the explosion in electronic communications has been in flux for a number of years. Sidley
More informationLAWYERS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE. COMMENT to the ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RULES THOUGHTS ON THE NOTE TO PROPOSED RULE 37(e) April 25, 2014
LAWYERS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE COMMENT to the ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RULES THOUGHTS ON THE NOTE TO PROPOSED RULE 37(e) April 25, 2014 Lawyers for Civil Justice ( LCJ ) respectfully submits the following
More informationWrit of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01457-CV IN RE SOUTHPAK CONTAINER CORPORATION AND CLEVELAND
More informationColorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06. No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
More informationCase 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 MARY SOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION Page 1 of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM v. CLARA DEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/22/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK, JR.
More informationOutlaw v. Willow Oral Argument Motions for Sanctions
William Mitchell E-Discovery Symposium Outlaw v. Willow Oral Argument Motions for Sanctions Mary T. Novacheck, Esq. Partner Bowman and Brooke LLP Outlaw's Motion: Cost Shift Vendor Fees to Willow Prior
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
More informationChallenging EEOC Conciliation Charges
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges Law360, New
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15-1328 NEAL D. SECREASE, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THE WESTERN & SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D November 19, 2009 No. 09-20049 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES
More information2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U. No. 1-12-0546 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2013 IL App (1st) 120546-U Third Division March 13, 2013 No. 1-12-0546 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationUK OFT Investigation into Health Markets
MARCH 23, 2011 EU LIFE SCIENCES UPDATE UK OFT Investigation into Health Markets Executive Summary On 10 March 2011, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) formally launched a market study into private healthcare.
More informationTax Court Addresses Implied Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege
Tax Court Addresses Implied Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege The Tax Court Holds That Raising Good-Faith and State-of-Mind Defenses to Accuracy-Related Penalties Could Result in an Implied Waiver
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD.
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
More informationCase 2:10-cv-00802-CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:10-cv-00802-CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION MURIELLE MOLIERE, Plaintiff, v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants.
More informationIn a recent Southern District of California decision, the court sent a
The Qualcomm Decision: Ethics In Electronic Discovery VICTORIA E. BRIEANT AND DAMON COLANGELO A recent decision reinforces the importance of a comprehensive electronic document management plan. In a recent
More informationFINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATORY UPDATE
OCTOBER 19, 2009 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATORY UPDATE The Financial Institutions Regulatory Practice Group of Sidley Austin LLP The Financial Institutions Regulatory Practice group offers counseling,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-12181. D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK. versus
Case: 12-12181 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-12181 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1834 Keith Welsh, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners
More informationtrial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations.
RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall
More informationHow To Preserve Evidence
Failing to Preserve Critical Evidence Spoliation sanctions and how they can impact your case At some point, most litigation attorneys will be confronted with the problem of their client or the opposing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-13737. D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG
Case: 11-13737 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13737 [DO NOT PUBLISH] D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG In
More informationSupreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations Applicable to False Claims Act Whistleblower Suits Against Government Contractors
Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations Applicable to False Claims Act Whistleblower Suits Against Government Contractors In Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-0-LHK Document Filed0// Page of ERIC F. HARTMAN, ESQ. (SB # 0) LAW OFFICE OF ERIC F. HARTMAN 00 S. FIRST STREET, #0 SAN JOSE, CA. (0) - / Fax (0) -00 Attorney for Specially Appearing Defendant,
More information2016 SIDLEY PRELAW SCHOLARS PROGRAM
2016 SIDLEY PRELAW SCHOLARS PROGRAM The Sidley Prelaw Scholars Program is designed to increase diversity in law schools and the legal profession by helping diverse, high-performing college students with
More informationediscovery Update February 2010
ediscovery Update February 2010 VEDDERPRICE ediscovery Update Chicago New York Washington, D.C. February 2010 Zubulake Revisited Preservation Obligations and Sanctions Standards Clarifi ed In Pension Committee
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC ORDER
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
More informationDelaware Insurable Interest Law Developments
OCTOBER 12, 2011 Delaware Insurable Interest Law Developments INSURANCE UPDATE On September 20, 2011, the Delaware Supreme Court (the DE Supreme Court ) issued an opinion interpreting several provisions
More informationFOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS
Page 1 FOCUS - 130 of 497 DOCUMENTS NICOLE TERRY, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hunter Wellman, Jr., Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEBORAH A. WELLMAN, Defendants.
More informationCase 5:14-cv-00141-XR Document 37 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:14-cv-00141-XR Document 37 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION TAMMY FABIAN, v. Plaintiffs, CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner
More informationINVESTMENT FUNDS. SEC Proposes First Dodd-Frank Investment Advisers Act Rule to Address Family Offices. What Is a Family Office?
OCTOBER 22, 2010 INVESTMENT FUNDS SEC Proposes First Dodd-Frank Investment Advisers Act Rule to Address Family Offices Section 409(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the
More informationPlaintiffs, Defendants. x
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK usdc sdn( X DOCUMENT DMAC LLC and FOURMEN CONSTRUCTION, INC., ELF C\ OY 3 Plaintiffs, DATEr -against- CITY OF PEEKSKILL, CITY OF PEEKSKILL MAYOR
More informationPrivate Securities Fraud Claims Under Section 10(b) Based on False or Misleading Statements
Private Securities Fraud Claims Under Section 10(b) Based on False or Misleading Statements U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Private Actions May Be Brought Only Against Parties With Ultimate Authority Over
More informationgrouped into five different subject areas relating to: 1) planning for discovery and initial disclosures; 2)
ESI: Federal Court An introduction to the new federal rules governing discovery of electronically stored information In September 2005, the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously approved
More informationBad Faith: Choice of Law Matters
Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge Insurance and Reinsurance Review - September 2010 Marc S. Voses Choice of law issues cannot be overlooked in insurance bad faith litigation,
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationTechnology Assisted Review Goes Left: Predictive Analytics In Information Governance
BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Technology Assisted Review
More informationCase 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 JOHN and JOANNA ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-1731-T-33TBM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL
PHARMA SUPPLY, INC., v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER MITCHELL A. STEIN and STEIN LAW, P.C., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT
BAP Appeal No. 05-36 Docket No. 29 Filed: 01/20/2006 Page: 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN RE RICHARD A. FORD and TONDA L. FORD, also known as Tonda Yung, Debtors.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-10629 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cv-00868-CSC.
Case: 15-10629 Date Filed: 08/06/2015 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10629 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cv-00868-CSC W.L.
More informationTkaczyk v 337 E. 62nd LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 31522(U) August 11, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160264/2013 Judge: Cynthia S.
Tkaczyk v 337 E. 62nd LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 31522(U) August 11, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160264/2013 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed August 16, 2001. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-00177-CV HENRY P. MASSEY AND ANN A. MASSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF COURTNEY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 40459-1-II Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v. LOVERA M. BLACKCROW, Respondent. Armstrong, J. The Clallam County Superior
More informationv. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-14-1046 ERNEST WARREN FARR, JR., DEBBIE HOLMES, AND JO ANN FARR APPELLANTS V. AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY APPELLEE Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court People v. Moravec, 2015 IL App (1st) 133869 Appellate Court Caption THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD MORAVEC, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session STEPHANIE JONES and HOWARD JONES v. RENGA I. VASU, M.D., THE NEUROLOGY CLINIC, and METHODIST LEBONHEUR HOSPITAL Appeal from the
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00125-CV CHRISTOPHER EDOMWANDE APPELLANT V. JULIO GAZA & SANDRA F. GAZA APPELLEES ---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
More informationVictor Stanley: A Valuable Reference Tool Involving Harsh Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation
Victor Stanley: A Valuable Reference Tool Involving Harsh Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation By Candice McPhillips and Katherine Ruffing Introduction A recent must read opinion in the case of Victor
More informationPlan Sponsor Basics Webinar Series Issues for 401(k) Plan Sponsors with Employer Stock Investment Funds
Plan Sponsor Basics Webinar Series Issues for 401(k) Plan Sponsors with Employer Stock Investment Funds Webinar 5 of 5 November 4, 2014 www.morganlewis.com Presenters: Lisa H. Barton Jeremy P. Blumenfeld
More information2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U. No. 1-13-0250 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2014 IL App (1st) 130250-U FIFTH DIVISION September 12, 2014 No. 1-13-0250 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-50895 Document: 00513153752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED August 13, 2015 ANA GARCIA
More informationPARRY G. CAMERON, Senior Attorney
Phone: 310.557.2009 Fax: 310.551.0283 Email: pcameron@tocounsel.com Parry Cameron has over twenty-three years experience in commercial and business litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. He
More informationCase 4:10-cv-01249 Document 103 Filed in TXSD on 10/09/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:10-cv-01249 Document 103 Filed in TXSD on 10/09/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION TOP PEARL, LTD., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-10-1249 COSA
More informationCase 2:09-cv-04344-MSG Document 27 Filed 01/26/11 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-04344-MSG Document 27 Filed 01/26/11 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA K. RICHARD : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : US AIRWAYS, INC., et al
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction, and Opinion filed August 20, 2009. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-08-00925-CV ATLAS GULF-COAST, INC. D/B/A ATLAS
More informationCase 2:05-cv-01969-HGB-ALC Document 342 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.
Case 2:05-cv-01969-HGB-ALC Document 342 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EUGENE LIGER, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 05-1969 NEW ORLEANS HORNETS NBA
More informationTeva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation
January 28, 2015 Practice Group(s): IP Litigation IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation By Michael J. Abernathy, Suzanne E. Konrad, Rebecca M. Cavin
More informationStatement of the Case
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
More informationElectronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys
Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys By Ronald S. Allen, Esq. As technology has evolved, the federal courts have
More informationSMALL CLAIMS RULES. (d) Record of Proceedings. A record shall be made of all small claims court proceedings.
SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit JRS MANAGEMENT, Appellant v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Appellee 2014-1834 Appeal from the Civilian
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued June 11, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00636-CV SINHUE TEMPLOS, Appellant V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00586-AWI-SAB Document 41 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 13
Case :-cv-00-awi-sab Document Filed 0// Page of 0 DALE L. ALLEN, JR., SBN KEVIN P. ALLEN, SBN 0 ALLEN, GLAESSNER & WERTH, LLP 0 Montgomery Street, Suite 0 San Francisco, California 0 Telephone: () -00
More informationCase 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,
More informationCase 3:11-cv-01234-MMH-MCR Document 25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 145
Case 3:11-cv-01234-MMH-MCR Document 25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 145 NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
More informationThe Redgrave Roundtable. New Proposed Federal Discovery Rules: What They Say & What Is Next
The Redgrave Roundtable New Proposed Federal Discovery Rules: What They Say & What Is Next Today s Speakers Jonathan Redgrave Partner, Redgrave LLP Thomas Allman Adjunct Professor, University of Cincinnati
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Opinion filed February 7, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-01144-CV ANTONIO GARCIA, JR., Appellant V. PALESTINE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, n/k/a MEMORIAL MOTHER FRANCES HOSPITAL,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD LYLE STRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JULIE BUCK, in her individual capacity; DALE BROWN, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE,
More information2016 PA Super 20. Appeal from the Order Entered October 10, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Civil Division at No: A.D. No.
2016 PA Super 20 TRACY PRICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SIMAKAS COMPANY, INC., SIMAKAS INC., SIMAKAS CO., SIMAKAS BROTHERS, INC., ALEXANDER SIMAKAS T/D/B/A SIMAKAS BROTHERS, ALL FIELDS ELECTRIC
More informationNOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS
NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS By Celeste King, JD and Barrett Breitung, JD* In 1998
More informationHow To Resolve A Fee Dispute In A Personal Injury Action In N.Y.S.A.U.S
Case 3:10-cv-00559-MAD-DEP Document 73 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMESE M. VARGA, Plaintiff, Civ. Action No. 3:10-CV-0559 (MAD/DEP)
More informationHow To Prove That A Person Is Not Responsible For A Cancer
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-353 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationNOTICE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA ) )
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d. THE SUPREME COURT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 29, 2014 Decided February
More information2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order
More informationNLRB: NxGen Case Management, E-Government and E-Discovery
NLRB: NxGen Case Management, By: James G. Paulsen, Assistant General Counsel, OGC and Bryan Burnett, Chief Information Officer, OCIO, National Labor Relations Board A. Next Generation (NxGen) Case Management
More information