Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Gibbons P.C.

A Dangerous Game of Hide the Ball: District Court Grants Sanctions and Reopens Discovery for Failure to Disclose Photographs and Videos of Accident Scene

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 6, 2023

A recent decision from the District of New Jersey reminded attorneys and litigants of the importance of complying with discovery obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Indeed, the court imposed sanctions, just short of dismissal, on the plaintiff and his counsel for failure to produce nearly 100 photographs and videos of the accident scene at the center of the litigation. In Reilly v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a product liability action, the defendants sought dismissal of the complaint as a discovery sanction for the plaintiff’s late production of 81 photos and three videos that the plaintiff’s counsel took in July 2020 of the house where the plaintiff fell and the ladder that was the subject of the lawsuit. Throughout discovery, the plaintiff did not produce the photos and videos and he did not include any reference to them in a privilege log. Moreover, the plaintiff implicitly represented in discovery responses that no such additional photos or videos even existed. The defendants did not learn of the photos and videos until the plaintiff’s counsel took the deposition of a fact witness and presented the witness with a photo – one that was not produced in discovery – of the interior of the home where the accident occurred, and the witness testified that the...

Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Grant of a Motion to Strike Class Allegations

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 5, 2023

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the grant of a pre-discovery motion to strike class allegations. In Elson v. Black, 14 women from seven states sought to bring a putative class action against the defendant companies, alleging that the defendants falsely advertised its FasciaBlaster product. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the FasciaBlaster had been falsely advertised as a product that would eliminate cellulite, help with weight loss, and relieve pain. The district court, in a three-sentence opinion, struck the class allegations, finding that the class failed to establish commonality. The next day, the district court dismissed the remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. While the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the district court opinion to be “inappropriately brief,” it agreed that the class could not be certified, nor could the plaintiffs establish their claims of fraud. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the district court’s ruling dismissing two plaintiffs’ express warranty claims, finding that the court failed to apply the law of a specific jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the class could not be certified under Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement and Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. First, the plaintiffs’ claims were governed by different states’ laws, and the plaintiffs were unable to meet their burden establishing that “such differences...

New Policy From DOJ Offers Predictability and Incentives to Self-Report Misconduct

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On March 7, 2023

Representatives of the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) announced on February 22, 2023, the immediate implementation of a new Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. This new policy was created in response to a September 2022 memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, which requested that each component of the Department of Justice (DOJ) review its policies on corporate voluntary self-disclosure and revise or create a formal written policy that incentivizes such self-disclosure. The stated intention of the new policy is to provide transparency and predictability to companies and the defense bar concerning the benefits, and potential outcomes, in cases where companies voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate with the government, and remediate the misconduct in a timely and appropriate manner. In general, the policy requires that: (1) the disclosure of misconduct is made voluntarily (not to include instances where there is a pre-existing obligation to disclose, e.g., by regulation or contract); (2) the disclosure be made prior to an imminent threat of disclosure, prior to the misconduct being publicly disclosed, and within a reasonably prompt time after the company becomes aware of the misconduct; and (3) the disclosure includes all relevant facts concerning the misconduct that are known to the company. The incentives created by this new policy are significant and include the following: Absent the presence of aggravating...

EPA Amending Standards for Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On February 9, 2023

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is set to amend the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule (AAI Rule), the standard for evaluating a property’s environmental conditions prior to purchase, which may impact a purchaser’s potential liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for any contamination discovered at the property. Those affected by this amendment include both public and private parties who are purchasing potentially contaminated properties and wish to establish a limitation on CERCLA liability as bona fide prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, or innocent landowners. In addition, any entity conducting a site characterization or assessment on a property with funding from a brownfields grant awarded under CERCLA Section 104(k)(2)(B)(ii) may be affected by this action. The AAI Rule first went into effect in 2006 and has been subject to amendments since that time. The current amendments will become effective on February 13, 2023, and will reference a new standard – “ASTM E1527-21” – that may be used to satisfy the requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries under CERCLA. Significant changes within the new standard include, but are not limited to: Revised and new definitions to make requirements clearer than the prior 2013 standard Requirements for more specific information related to the subject property’s use, as well as historical research related...

Back to the Future, or Forward to the Past? EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Release New Clean Water Act New Rule Revising Definition of “Waters of the United States”

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On January 13, 2023

Ever since the enactment in 1972 of the modern Clean Water Act (a comprehensive amendment of the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act), courts, agencies, and landowners have struggled to define the statute’s geographic scope, especially with respect to wetlands, which do not fit neatly within familiar notions of “water” or “land.” Landowners often confront this issue because the statute prohibits unpermitted discharges of pollutants (including fill material) into “navigable waters,” but defines that term broadly as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” which includes some, but not all, areas that scientists would deem to be wetlands. In December, the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released the latest chapter in this five-decade-long saga, in the form of a new 514-page rule defining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The rule was officially promulgated via publication in the Federal Register on January 18, and will become effective 60 days later. The new WOTUS rule is the product of a rulemaking process spurred by a January 2021 executive order signed by President Biden that directed all agencies to review regulations and take appropriate action to address those that might conflict with policies of science-based decision-making. (86 Fed. Reg. 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021)). It replaces the Trump...

Dialing It In: E.D.N.Y. Denies Motion to Compel Production of Cell Phone for Forensic Examination Upon Mere “Speculation” That Metadata Was Deleted or Altered

by

Posted in Legal Decisions & Court Rules

On July 29, 2022

This blog has previously noted the recent uptick of district courts authorizing forensic experts to conduct examinations and forensic imaging of cell phones to ensure the preservation and production of relevant electronic data. While we have discussed recent cases that have ordered such forensic imaging, such examination is not appropriate in every case and courts must continue to keep such “drastic” and “intrusive” discovery measures in check. In this regard, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently denied a defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce, for forensic examination, a cell phone that recorded videos already produced by the plaintiff in native format.

No Property Damage, No Claim for Business Interruption: New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Six COVID-19 Business Loss Claims

by

Posted in Appellate

On July 13, 2022

In a recent decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that six businesses were not entitled to insurance coverage for losses sustained when they were forced to close or limit their operations as a result of Executive Orders (“EOs”) issued by Governor Phil Murphy to halt the spread of COVID-19. This ruling follows the general trend nationally in which courts have rejected claims by insureds for business interruption losses incurred due to government orders related to the spread of COVID-19. The decision arose from the consolidated appeals of six businesses that reported losses as a result of the EOs and sued their insurance companies, alleging they improperly refused to cover the plaintiffs’ insurance claims for business losses sustained due to the issuance of the EOs. All six suits were dismissed with prejudice at the trial level pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim, because the plaintiffs’ business losses were not related to any “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered properties as required by the terms of their insurance policies. The Appellate Division affirmed all six dismissals and further concluded that the losses were not covered under “their insurance policies’ civil authority clauses, which provided coverage for losses sustained from governmental actions forcing closure or limiting business operations under certain circumstances.”...

New Jersey Appellate Division Broadens Scope of Sham Affidavit Doctrine

by

Posted in General Litigation

On June 15, 2022

Last month, in an opinion approved for publication, the New Jersey Appellate Division, in Metro Marketing, LLC, et al. v. Nationwide Vehicle Assurance, Inc., et al., addressed whether a party who switched sides mid-litigation entered a “sham affidavit,” a self-serving certification that directly contradicts prior representations in order to create an issue of fact, after the side-switching took place. In this non-compete litigation between rival telemarketing firms, the plaintiffs sued their former employees for misappropriation of trade secrets. Two scenarios arose in which the sham-affidavit doctrine was potentially implicated. The first was after a defendant who had been deposed returned to the plaintiffs’ employ and submitted a certification directly contradicting his prior deposition testimony. The second was after a co-defendant, who was also rehired by one of the plaintiffs’ companies after his deposition, contradicted his former testimony during a secretly recorded phone call. The trial court excluded both pieces of evidence and granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division ruled that the court below properly excluded contradictory testimony of the first defendant. On this issue of first impression, the court held that the sham-affidavit doctrine could apply in a side-switching scenario where: (1) a co-defendant is deposed; (2) that deponent thereafter obtains a job with...

Keeping the Curtain Closed: Connecticut District Court Denies Discovery on Discovery Where No Basis to Claim Deficiencies Shown

by

Posted in E-Discovery / General Litigation

On April 28, 2022

Despite the broad scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, courts are generally reluctant to permit “discovery on discovery,” i.e., discovery requests related to a party’s efforts to search for, locate, preserve, and collect relevant electronically stored information (ESI). In a case brought against Wesleyan University (the “University”) by a student expelled for alleged cheating, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut recently declined to compel such discovery on discovery, where the plaintiff requested that the defendant identify and “catalog all of the devices on which responsive communications reside.” The discovery request was made well after the Rule 26 conference – discovery had been ongoing for nearly two years – and the plaintiff waited almost a full year after serving the requests to file her motion to compel. In light of these facts and the plaintiff’s failure to establish an “adequate factual basis” for requiring such discovery on discovery, the court denied portions of the plaintiff’s motion to compel. In Doe v. Wesleyan University, the plaintiff, a former student at the University, was expelled for allegedly cheating on her exams by improperly accessing the University’s “computerized learning management system” called “Moodle” during her exams. The University conducted an investigation and held an Honor Board proceeding, and the board decided...

Establishing “Intent to Deprive” Under Rule 37(e): District Court Imposes Adverse Inference Instruction Based on Timing of Spoliation

by

Posted in General Litigation

On October 28, 2021

This blog has previously discussed the challenges a litigant faces in moving for the so-called “severe sanctions” pursuant to amended Rule 37(e). With the 2015 amendment to Rule 37(e), a moving party seeking severe spoliation sanctions must establish that the opposing party “acted with the intent to deprive” the requesting party of the electronically-stored information (ESI) in the litigation at issue. In the absence of an explicit admission that a responding party deleted ESI with the subjective intent to deprive the requesting party of the same, a requesting party often faces an uphill battle establishing the “intent to deprive” requirement. A recent decision from the District Court for the District of Arizona provides an example of the type of circumstantial evidence – including the timing of the spoliation at issue – a moving party can rely on to potentially support the imposition of severe sanctions. In Federal Trade Commission v. Noland, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was investigating defendant Noland and his business, Success By Health (“SBH”), for allegedly “operat[ing] as an illegal pyramid scheme” and making false statements to SBH’s affiliates. In May 2019, Noland inadvertently discovered the FTC’s investigation and, when the FTC realized Noland found out about the investigation, the FTC advised SBH and Noland to preserve relevant documents. The day after...

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…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts