Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Sanctions

Safety First: Counsel Should Take Affirmative Steps to Ensure ESI Is Being Preserved

by

Posted in Legal Decisions & Court Rules

On February 26, 2024

In the advent of the 2015 amendment to Rule 37(e), courts have made clear that counsel’s obligation to ensure the preservation of ESI extends beyond the mere issuance of a litigation hold. Instead, to avoid possible sanctions, counsel must take affirmative steps to ensure the client’s compliance with the litigation hold to prevent the destruction of relevant ESI. In multidistrict litigation over a hazardous spill, In re Gold King Mine Release, defendant Harrison Western Construction Corporation (“Harrison”) was sanctioned for its failure to preserve and produce relevant documents related to its work on a Colorado mine prior to the release of millions of gallons of toxic waste. In its 2019 discovery requests, the state of Utah sought documents related to the work Harrison performed or planned to perform at the mine in 2014 and 2015. In response, Harrison was unable to provide most of the requested documents from that time period, claiming – through a third-party IT consultant – that a “catastrophic event” occurred during Harrison’s migration of documents to a new server. Because Harrison could not produce the requested documents, Utah moved for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and (e); however, the court seemingly only analyzed Utah’s application under Rule 37(e). In its analysis under Rule 37(e), the court focused on Harrison’s...

Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: Federal Sanctions Imposed for Party’s Failure to Timely Search Its Email Server

by

Posted in Legal Decisions & Court Rules

On October 20, 2023

A recent decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania underscores an important lesson on attorneys’ duty of competence, which requires a practical and well-rounded understanding of technology in order to execute their clients’ e-discovery obligations. Indeed, as Ondigo LLC v. intelliARMOR LLC reflects, ignorance of the various sources of e-discovery cannot shield attorneys or parties from sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) or 37(e).

Of All People…: DC District Court Hits Experienced Litigator Defendant With Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Preserve

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules / General Litigation / Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On October 5, 2023

In yet another cautionary tale displaying how seriously attorneys and clients must take discovery obligations, United States District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell entered a very rarely imposed default judgement against famed former U.S. Attorney and Mayor Rudy Giuliani for failure to preserve discovery in a defamation suit. Judge Howell’s opinion in Freeman, et al. v. Giuliani represents a blunt condemnation of discovery gamesmanship that is part of a growing number of cases that impose the most severe sanctions for failure to comply with preserving electronic evidence. In 2021, plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss brought suit against defendant Giuliani for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage claims. In response to the plaintiffs’ first set of discovery requests, Giuliani – an attorney for over 50 years – served an “initial production of 193 documents [that was] largely a single page of communications, blobs of indecipherable data, a sliver of the financial documents.” After the plaintiffs’ repeated inquiries into his preservation efforts and the court’s intervention, Giuliani issued a sworn declaration providing that his only preservation effort was turning off the auto-delete function on a nondescript list of devices and social media and email accounts. Given Giuliani’s admitted “preference to concede plaintiffs’ claims rather than produce discovery in this case,”...

Are You Hallucinating? Attorneys Sanctioned for the “Unprecedented” Act of Submitting Nonexistent Case Law Provided by ChatGPT

by

Posted in Technology Developments and Issues

On July 28, 2023

On June 22, 2023, District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sanctioned a law firm after it submitted fabricated judicial citations and opinions provided by the popular artificial intelligence (AI) engine, ChatGPT. After plaintiff’s counsel filed an affirmation with the court, which was drafted by one attorney but signed by another at the same firm, defense counsel advised that he had “‘been unable to locate most of the case law cited in [the Affirmation], and the few cases which the undersigned has been able to locate do not stand for the propositions for which they are cited.’” The court “conducted its own search for the cited cases but was unable to locate multiple authorities cited in the Affirmation [].” Accordingly, Judge Castel issued an order to show cause for sanctions, emphasizing the “unprecedented circumstance” presented to the court. The court required a hearing as to whether sanctions ought to be imposed. Following submissions, it made several findings and ultimately imposed sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel. First, Judge Castel found that the attorney who signed the Affirmation “violated Rule 11 in not reading a single case cited in his … Affirmation [] and taking no other steps on his own to check whether any aspect of...

Unintentional Consequences? The District Court of Maryland Holds Evidence Failed Rule 37(e)’s “Intent to Deprive” Requirement

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 10, 2023

A recent opinion from the District Court of Maryland highlights the challenges litigants face proving intent to deprive under Rule 37(e)(2) when seeking sanctions for spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI). In Gov’t Emps. Health Ass’n v. Actelion Pharm. LTD., et al., Magistrate Judge Mark Coulson set forth the requirements to prove entitlement to remedial measures or sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1) and (2) and then applied these requirements to decide the ESI spoliation claims before the court. This blog has written extensively on what is required to trigger Rule 37(e) and resulting sanctions. In June 2017, defendant Actelion (“defendant”) was purchased by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”). Following the acquisition, Actelion migrated its data to J&J, which managed the data of both companies. On November 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed this antitrust litigation against Actelion alleging the plaintiff was forced to pay higher prices for one of Actelion’s drugs because of the unavailability of a cheaper generic version caused by the defendant’s blocking of competition. Soon after, J&J issued a legal hold to preserve relevant information for the antitrust litigation. The defendant’s custodians included in the legal hold were determined by the defendant’s then in-house counsel (“Thompson”). Absent from the legal hold were five former defendant employees (“at-issue custodians”) with documents relevant to the antitrust litigation....

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...

Caught in the Sauce: Papa John’s Founder’s Failure to Preserve ESI in Cellphones Leads to Curative Sanctions Despite Initial Preservation Efforts

by

Posted in Legal Decisions & Court Rules

On June 1, 2023

Practitioners and litigants alike largely understand that they must preserve evidence related to anticipated litigation. One potential pitfall, however, lies in the continuing nature of that obligation. Generally, a litigant’s duty to preserve evidence continues despite, for example, the collection of relevant documents or the imaging of devices containing relevant information. These principles were illustrated in a cautionary opinion by the Honorable Colin H. Lindsay, United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, in Schnatter v. 247 Grp., LLC, No. 3:20-3 (BJB) (CHL), 2022 WL 2402658 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 14, 2022). The case arose in the wake of Forbes Magazine publishing an article detailing a leaked conference call between the founder of Papa John’s, John H. Schnatter, and a marketing agency, during which Schnatter made racially charged comments. Within a week of publication, Schnatter was out as Chairman of Papa John’s and the University of Louisville announced it would rename the then Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium. Schnatter immediately retained counsel to assist in his separation with Papa John’s and explore potential affirmative claims. On July 25, 2018, just two weeks after the Forbes article was published, Schnatter’s own counsel sent him a Litigation Hold Notice. The Notice outlined his document preservation responsibilities, including suspending any automatic destruction...

Securities Plaintiffs Beware: Third Circuit Holds Initiating Suit to Force Settlement May Violate Rule 11 and Can Lead to Mandatory Sanctions Under the PSLRA

by

Posted in Securities

On April 24, 2023

With the 30th anniversary of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) on the horizon, the Third Circuit’s recent precedential opinion in Scott v. Vantage Corp. provides timely guidance on an important aspect of the landmark statute that may not always be top of mind – its interplay with Rule 11. The PSLRA, in its effort to curb frivolous securities litigation, not only imposes heightened pleading requirements and an automatic stay of discovery pending motions to dismiss, but also requires Rule 11 compliance findings as to each party and attorney based on what they knew at the time suit was filed. In Scott, the Third Circuit reiterated these principles and held that district courts must impose some form of sanction for any Rule 11 violation, no matter how insubstantial the violation – a characteristic unique to the application of Rule 11 in PSLRA cases. The decision also reminds us that the PSLRA creates a presumption in favor of awarding attorneys’ fees in cases of “substantial failure” to comply with Rule 11, which is defined by the court in the opinion. Finally, the decision stands for the remarkable proposition that filing a complaint to force settlement may violate Rule 11 even when the claims asserted are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. In Scott, a...

Crash Course: Court Provides Refresher on Rule 37(e) Spoliation Sanctions

by

Posted in General Litigation

On May 25, 2022

A recent decision from the District of Arizona provided a refresher for litigants and judges alike in the framework under which electronically stored information (ESI) spoliation sanctions must be addressed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). The author of the opinion – District Judge David Campbell – expressed his frustration that Rule 37(e) continues to be ignored by some judges and litigants in the application and adjudication of motions seeking ESI spoliation sanctions. Judge Campbell’s frustration is easily understood, as he chaired the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure during the 2015 revision to Rule 37(e). In Fast v. GoDaddy.com LLC, Judge Campbell seized the opportunity to meticulously explain each requirement of Rule 37(e) and then apply those requirements to adjudicate the spoliation claims before him. In this case, involving sex and disability discrimination claims, the plaintiff claimed she was fired for lacking the technical skills required for her employment, and that male employees with lesser technical skills were retained by the defendants. At the close of discovery, the defendants asserted discovery violations against the plaintiff, seeking sanctions for the spoliation of relevant ESI under Rule 37(e) and for the failure to produce relevant information under Rule 37(c)(1). Since the 2015 amendments to Rule 37(e), there has been controversy as...

Disappearing Act: Court Provides Reminder that Counsel Must Investigate and Understand Client’s Use of Ephemeral Messaging Services to Prevent Sanctions

by

Posted in General Litigation

On November 30, 2021

A decision earlier this year from the Northern District of Indiana illustrates the importance of counsel thoroughly investigating and understanding all data sources their clients may be using to create and store potentially relevant Electronically Stored Information (ESI). With the increased use of messaging applications – including ephemeral ones – counsel must understand the intricacies of each application (and its retention and preservation policies) used by their clients to prevent the destruction of relevant ESI. In this case involving civil rights claims, the defendants sought evidence regarding the plaintiff’s activities and character to disprove claims that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of his honor and reputation – a “protected liberty interest” – without due process. Through one of their requests, the defendants sought all data related to the plaintiff’s Snapchat account. For background, Snapchat is a messaging service where users record photos and videos (called “Snaps”) to send to other users. These Snaps appear on the receiver’s screen only for a limited period of time (generally, seconds). In addition, Snapchat users can send chat messages to other users, create “Stories” that remain visible to all users for 24 hours, and save Snaps indefinitely by storing them in the user’s “Memories.” Data within the user’s “Memories” is saved by Snapchat until a user deletes it, at...

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

Categories