Cases: Discovery

Discovery/Special Fee Shifting Statute/Trade Secrets: Losing Plaintiffs In Patent/Trade Secret Dispute Hit With $12.46 Million For Attorney’s Fees And Electronic Discovery Expenses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Trade Secrets

  Only $1 Million Reduction From Fees Requested.      Patent/trade secrets are usually vigorously and heavily litigated, and the losers can get hit with substantial fees/expenses as Gabriel Techs., Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 08CV1992 AJB (MDD), 2013 WL 410103 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) demonstrates.      There, plaintiffs lost a patent infringement/trade secrets case. […]

Discovery: RAND Discovery Shows eDiscovery Is Expensive And ABA Journal Article Offers Tips To Reduce eDiscovery Costs For Legal Departments

Cases: Discovery

       A February 19, 2013 post on the on-line version of the ABA Journal has some interesting tidbits and suggestions in the eDiscovery area.      In line with results from a Compliance, Governance and Oversight Counsel (CGOC) survey, the average legal department spends approximately $3 million per discovery to gather and prepare information for

Discovery/Requests For Admissions/Sanctions: Second District Court Of Appeal Affirms Sanctions Denials On Issues Litigators Encounter With Frequency

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

  Discovery, Mediation, and RFA Sanctions Denied.      Hi, folks. Although we are in the Holidays (busy at that), we do like to report on decisions that have issues of recurring interest to California litigators. The next one should be a case that peaks such an interest and provides resonant lessons to us all —

Discovery/Sanctions: Acacia Research Subsidiary Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. Facing F.R.Civ. P. 37 Fees And Expenses From Atlanta Federal Court Discovery Dispute

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Oops      In Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1098-TCB (N.D. Ga.) [Doc. 271 filed Sept. 14, 2012), District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. has decided that Acacia Research subsidiary Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. (OPS) will have to pay fees and expenses under F.R.Civ. P. 37 for Intel’s motion to compel

Discovery/Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Reverses $28,181.10 Sanctions Order Under F.R.Civ.P. Rule 45(c)(1)

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Cost Of Complying With Subpoena By Third Party Was Minimal And Subpoena Was Not Issued In Bad Faith Or Was Not Facially Defective      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) allows a district judge issuing a subpoena to award appropriate sanctions, including lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees, against a party or attorney responsible for

Discovery: $105,492.25 In Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant And Its Attorney Sustained For Evasive Responses And Inordinate Meet And Confer Broken Promises

Cases: Discovery

  Trial Court Has Some Interesting Discussion of Trees Along the Way.      DK Art Publishing, Inc. v. City Art, Inc., Case No. B229122 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 11, 2012) (unpublished) is a sober reminder that game playing in discovery proceedings can result in serious sanctions that will indeed be affirmed upon review by

Appealability/Discovery: Losing Plaintiff Filing Chapter 7 And Not Disclosing Lawsuit In Bankruptcy Lacks Standing To Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery

  Appeal Dismissed Because Unscheduled Property Cannot Be Abandoned at Close of Bankruptcy Proceeding.      Lamas v. Infinity Ins. Co., Case No. B233042 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2012) (unpublished; 3-0 decision authored by Justice Johnson) is a situation where plaintiff appealed some discovery sanctions even though she had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

Discovery/Sanctions: Diepenbrock Decision Is Now Published

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Reversal of Sanctions Award Now Published, Showing Unsettled Law on Scope of Marital Privilege.      In our July 31, 2012 post, we examined Diepenbrock v. Brown, a First District, Division 3 unpublished decision reversing a protective order sanctions award based upon an unsettled marital privilege issue. We can now report that the opinion was

Scroll to Top