Decision Revisits State of E-Discovery Six Years After Zubulake. At both the federal and state levels of litigation, e-discovery is an expensive process fraught with onerous obligations by the responding litigants and their attorneys. Obviously, failure to preserve, collect and store documents can harm the integrity of the judicial process. As a result, the […]
Sixth District Found Opposing Party Forfeited Challenge to Billing Record Objections When It Failed to Attack Omissions Through Discovery Motion. In the next case, the Sixth District—in UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, Case No. H033862 (6th Dist. Jan. 22, 2010) (unpublished)—affirmed a $402,596.40 fee award under a contractual provision when sustaining a trial
Delaware Decision Shows How Substantial E-Discovery Monetary Sanctions Can Be Imposed In Failure to Preserve Evidence Case. Because California just recently passed e-discovery statutes, we continue to monitor cases of interest in fee and expense awards in computer spoliation cases. Here is one out of Delaware. In Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates (Kates
Fourth District, Division 3 Reverses Sanctions, Ordering Reimbursement of Trial And Additional Discovery Costs. As indicated on prior posts on e-discovery, litigators must be attuned to both pretrial, trial, and post-appeal sanctions that can be awarded against parties failing to produce computer embedded information. Here is one where the offending party got a break,
Fourth District, Division 1 Did Vacate “Future Deposition” Sanctions. The next post is a very pragmatic one for litigators involved in discovery battles. Cutting to the chase, an attorney was hit with substantial fees (sanctions) for interposing over 300 objections during the course of some depositions. The Fourth District, Division 1 affirmed, although they
Second District, Division 2 Reverses $3,387.50 Sanctions Award Against Attorneys. Under various discovery statutes, the trial court has discretion to award discovery sanctions jointly and severally against losing litigant and/or their attorneys. However, attorneys have another defense in their quiver—the “my client made me do it” defense. The Court of Appeal is Manzanares
Sixth District Provides a Good Lesson in Properly Timing Appeal of Discovery Sanctions Under $5,000. This next unpublished case, in a 3-0 unpublished decision from the Sixth District, is a good reminder on when the appeal of smaller discovery sanctions orders—under $5,000—is properly made. In Stough v. Klure, Case No. H034000 (6th
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Sanctions Were No Abuse of Discretion. The next case is one in which the Fourth District, Division 3 affirmed monetary and terminating sanctions against either plaintiff’s attorney or plaintiff based on failure to respond to requests or failing to be candid in electronic discovery matters. This shows how one
Published Decision Is Must Reading For All Litigators Engaged in Discovery Disputes. We knew that we would enjoy the next decision, because it analogizes discovery disputes to the imagery of Hotspur (Henry Percy)—who is graphically depicted in Shakespeare’s Henry IV as being blinded by a combative nature and incapable of informally resolving a disagreement
Mr. Segal So Reports in Recent California Lawyer Article. We would like to thank Mr. Perry L. Segal, an IT executive turned e-discovery attorney and consultant, for an interesting statistic he provided in his article “E-Discovery: New Rules, Big Headaches,” published in the September 2009 California Lawyer. Mr. Segal reports that it’s estimated
