Cases: Discovery – Page 11 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Discovery Sanctions: Blocking Deposition Questions On Prior Stress Events Justified Discovery Sanctions Against Plaintiff And His Attorney

May 27, 2011

Vinson Allows Such Inquiries During Discovery. Where a plaintiff in a wrongful termination suit puts his/her medical condition into controversy, Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 833 (1987) held that an IME/psychological exam was fair game because this condition was at issue in the suit. In like vein, Acting Justice Rylaarsdam on […]

E-Discovery: U.S. Magistrate Andrew J. Peck And Attorney David J. Lender Write “E-Discovery” Article Worth Reading

Cases: Discovery

May 1, 2011

They List Their 10 Key E-Discovery Issues for 2011. Available for reading in the Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (April 3, 2011 release) is an article “10 Key E-Discovery Issues in 2011: Expert Insight to Manage Successfully” written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck (S.D.N.Y.) and attorney David J. Lender (a partner at Weil, Gotshal

Sanctions: Discovery Sanctions And Order Noncompliance Award Totaling $5,870 Against Attorney Appealed

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

April 20, 2011

You Gotta Read On To See What Happens. This one started out badly for attorney. A trial judge imposed three types of awards against plaintiff”s attorney: (1) a $2,035 award for partial discovery referee expenses; (2) a $2,335 award for plaintiff’s deposition nonappearance; and (3) a CCP § 177.5 award of $1,500 for

E-Discovery Sanctions: State Appellate Court Affirms $13,500 Sanction Against Plaintiff And Her Attorney For Being Evasive In E-Discovery Cell Phone Dispute

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

February 23, 2011

First District, Division 4 Finds Sanctions Proper Under CCP § 2023.030(a). We do not see that many e-discovery sanction cases at the state level, with most of the law being decided by federal courts–notwithstanding that the Evidence Code definition of “writing” does include electronic information. Here is one where a $13,500 discovery sanction

E-Discovery: District Judge Sheindlin Issues New Opinion About Metadata Fields

Cases: Discovery

February 12, 2011

Opinion Arose From FOIA Productions by Federal Government; Cost Shifting Is Indicated As the Usual Rule in Production “Do-Overs.” U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, on February 7, 2011, issued yet another important opinion in the e-discovery area. (She is truly a pioneering jurist in this regard, authoring several of the groundbreaking electronic discovery

Discovery/Sanctions: $1,750 Sanction Against Losing Party Seeking Protective Order Sustained

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

February 9, 2011

Losing Party Unsuccessfully Sought to Regulate Deposition Conduct of Opposing Counsel. Civil litigators have seen it often–an opposing attorney who overuses privilege objections, instructs deponents not to answer based on nonprivileged grounds, coaches the witness through speaking objections or interruptive conferences outside of the deposition, or insults counsel taking the depositions. Apparently, plaintiff

E-Discovery: Defendants Ordered To Pay $1.049,850.04 In Fees And Costs For Electronic Spoliation

Cases: Discovery

January 29, 2011

U.S. Magistrate Judge Grimm Had Earlier Ordered Imprisonment If Payment Ducked, But Defense Did Remit Partial Payment Of What Was Ordered. In our September 21, 2010 post, we discussed Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497 (D. Md. 2010), in which U.S. Magistrate Judge Grimm determined that defendants repeatedly failed to

E-Discovery: N.D. Illinois Court Clarifies Cost Shifting Factors In Non-Party E-Discovery Context

Cases: Discovery

January 12, 2011

Degeer v. Gillis Examines Factors to be Weighted For Shifting Costs in Third Party Electronic Discovery Disputes. In Degeer v. Gillis, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129745 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2010), U.S. District Judge Nan R. Nolan examines the obligations of parties and non-parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 as it

E-Discovery 2010: Sanctions Are Down For The First Time Since The 2006 F.R.Civ.P Amendments

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

December 24, 2010

Level of Culpability and Prejudice Are Still Key Factors Driving Sanctions Awards. Just as we are giving you our top 20 attorney’s fees decisional redux for 2010, Williams Mullen, a 300-attorney firm with offices in Virginia, North Carolina, D.C. and London, has posted a December 17, 2010 Alert that provides a nice summary of

Discovery Sanctions: $52,600 In Discovery Sanctions Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

November 10, 2010

Third District Finds Substantial Justification for Sanctioned Parties’ Position, Many of Which Involved Attorney-Client Privilege Concerns. Although involving a convoluted set of facts for which we will only give you the “Reader’s Digest” version, Truckee Carson Irrig. Dist. v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., Case No. C061004 (3d Dist. Nov. 9, 2010) (unpublished) does