Electronic Spoliation: Inherent Power—Fraud on Court Requires Clear & Convincing Evidence — Factors — Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Consideration of Less Drastic Sanctions — [No Reference to 37(e), Which Governs]

ComLab Corp. v. Tire, 815 Fed.Appx. 597 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant ComLab, Corp. (“ComLab”) brings this consolidated appeal challenging two judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The first appeal concerns a September 11, ...
ComLab Corp. v. Tire, 815 Fed.Appx. 597 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant ComLab, Corp. (“ComLab”) brings this consolidated appeal challenging two judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The first appeal…
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Critical Evidence Generally Requires Willful Deception or Flagrant Disregard of Court Order — Disclosure of Undisclosed Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) During Discovery Precludes Claim of Surprise or Prejudice (and Satisfies Rule 26(e)(1)(A))

Inherent Power Sanctions — Notice of Contemplated Sanctions against Client (in Motion and Show Cause Order) Did Not Provide Notice of Potential Sanctions against Counsel — Finding of Bad Faith Required for Inherent Power Sanctions

Spoliation Sanctions: (1) Meaning of “Relevance” for Preservation vs. for Adverse Inference Purposes; (2) Only “Very Slight Showing” of Latter Required; (3) Adverse Inference Instruction OK for Negligent Spoliation of Tangible Evidence in D.C. Cir.; (4) Preponderance of Evidence for Adverse Inference Instruction vs. Clear & Convincing for Attorney’s Fees; (5) Wide Range of Inherent Power Sanctions Available; (6) Two Sets of Factors for Adverse Inference Instruction (D.C. Cir.) — Prerequisites and Propriety in the Circumstances; (7) Ordinary vs. Gross Negligence; (8) Cite

Rule 11 Sanctions Should Be Allocated Among Persons Responsible — Not Imposed Lightly As Misapplication Can Chill Counsel’s Enthusiasm and Stifle Creativity in Pursuing Novel Factual Or Legal Theories — Disgorgement of Fees into Court — Focus of Improper Purpose Inquiry Is On Objective Facts Supporting Inference Goal Was Harassment Or Unnecessary Delay — While Rule 11 Is Not Intended to Be Compensatory in First Instance, Effective Deterrence May Require Compensation of Victim — Rule 37 Sanctions: Where Case Has Been Dismissed after Violation, Best Sanction Is Award of Fees and Expenses Incurred in Bringing Motions to Compel and for Sanctions Against Client and Counsel Jointly

Rule 37(c) Preclusion for 26(a)(1) Non-Disclosure Requires Harm to Opponent, And Harm Doesn’t Require Preclusion — Preclusion Factors (1st Cir.) — “Substantially Justified” And “Harmless[ness]” Exceptions — Late Disclosure Can Be Harmless Even If It Follows Filing of Summary Judgment Motion

Circuit Split: District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Modify Protective Order after Rule 41(a)(1) Dismissal (11th Cir. (2-1))— Not a “Collateral Matter” over Which Jurisdiction Remains (Like Costs, Fees, Contempt Sanctions, Rule 11 Sanctions, and Motions to Confirm Arbitral Awards) — Stipulated Protective Order Is an Enforceable Contract, Subject to Post-Dismissal Lawsuit — Strong Dissenting Opinion

“The purpose of a Rule 11 sanction is to punish ‘unprofessional conduct in litigation'” — Bankruptcy: Automatic Stay Does Not Preclude Imposition of Contempt Sanctions: “‘[a] litigant should not be allowed to delay the imposition of sanctions indefinitely by the expedient of declaring bankruptcy'”

Rule 11 Sanctions: Attorney May Not Rely on Clients When Objectively Unreasonable — Cannot Rely on Discovery to Bring Claims with No Factual Basis — Specific Identification Requirement — $10,000 Deterrent Penalty OK — Factors from Adv. Comm. Note Adopted

Rule 37 Sanctions for Impeding, Delaying, Frustrating Deposition — Intricacies of Remote Deposition Protocols and 30(b)(6) Witnesses Using Notes — No Duty to ID Which 30(b)(6) Topic a Question Relates to — When a Protective Order Is a R. 37(b) Order — Sanctions Must Be Proportional to Offense — Motion to Strike = Objection — When Inherent Power Sanctions for Deposition Misconduct Are Apt

Rule 37 Sanctions: Second Circuit Factors — Exclusion of Witness Not Disclosed Per 26(a) Apt — “Interviewing a Witness Late in the Process Does Not Provide Cover for a Revised Disclosure” — Reconsideration Factors

Archives