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 […]
Our Tally Shows Over $1.66 Million In Sanctions Sustained On Appeal. If our readers want to read a truly wild case on discovery abuse (especially regarding electronic discovery, deposition noncandidness, and third-party witness tampering), you gotta read Robin Singh Ed. Services v. Blueprint Test Preparation, Case No. B204775 et al. (2d Dist., Div.
Opposite Side Did Not Raise Lack of Capacity by Answer or Demurrer, So No Dice On Sanctions. In V & P Trading Co., Inc. v. United Charter, LLC, Case No. C070571 (3d Dist. Dec. 19, 2012) (published), the trial court denied a motion to compel by a suspended corporation and awarded monetary 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 —
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
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
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 DK Art Publishing, Inc. v. City Art, Inc., Case No. B229122 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 11, 2012) (unpublished) is a sober reminder that game playing in discovery proceedings can result in serious sanctions that will indeed be affirmed upon review by
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 Co., Case No. B233042 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2012) (unpublished; 3-0 decision authored by Justice Johnson) is a situation where plaintiff appealed some discovery sanctions even though she had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
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
Substantial Justification for Opposition Given Unsettled Law on Scope of Marital Privilege. Plaintiff and her attorney were sanctioned $5,000 for unsuccessfully opposing a protective order motion brought by a third-party attempting to protect certain information from discovery under the marital privilege. The trial court thought the law clear on the issue and sanctioned
