Monetary sanctions can range from tens of thousands of dollars, e.g., Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strate- gic Resources Corp., No. 05-CIV-4837, 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006) (defendant and its law firm were sanctioned $45,161.82 for overlooking hidden server partitions containing dis- coverable ESI), to hundreds of thousands, e.g., See TR Investors LLC v. Genger, 2009 WL 4696062 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2009) ($750,000) (Genger), and even millions of dollars, e.g., Keithley v. Home
Store.com, Inc., No. C-03-04447 SI (
N.D.Cal 2008) (no pub.;8-12-08) ($1 million, because defen- dants did not “even come close to making reasonable efforts” to meet preservation and dis- covery requirements) and Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05 Civ. 1958-B, 2008 U.S. Dist. (
S.D.Cal. Jan. 7, 2008) ($8.5 million) (Qualcomm). Qualcomm, Order Granting In Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, Etc. (Jan. 7, 2008). Qualcomm, Order Declining to Im- pose Sanctions, Etc. (Document 998; filed Apr. 2, 2010).
xx
Monetary sanctions can range from tens of thousands of dollars, e.g., Phoenix Four, Inc v. Strategic Resources Corp., No. 05-CIV-4837, 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006) (defendant and its law firm were sanctioned $45,161.82 for overlooking hidden server partitions containing discoverable ESI), to hundreds of thousands, e.g., See TR Investors LLC v. Genger, 2009 WL 4696062 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2009) ($750,000) (Genger) and even millions of dollars, e.g., Keithley v. Home
Store.com, Inc., No. C-03-04447 SI (
N.D.Cal 2008) (no pub.;8-12-08) ($1 million, because defendants did not “even come close to making reasonable efforts” to meet preservation and discovery requirements) and Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05 Civ. 1958-B, 2008 U.S. Dist. (
S.D.Cal. Jan. 7, 2008) ($8.5 million) (Qualcomm).
xxi
Qualcomm, Order Granting In Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Sanc tions, Etc. (Jan. 7, 2008).
xxii Qualcomm, Order Declining to Impose Sanctions, Etc. (Document 998; filed Apr. 2, 2010).
xxiii See Treppel v. BioVail Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25867 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008) (to re cover emails that may have been deleted).
In Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Systs., No.
08-5521 JRT/AJB (D.Minn. Nov.18, 2009), the plaintiff was ordered to re-produce docu- in native format after producing documents in only .pdf format, despite requesting doc uments in their native format, meaning that the documents had to be produced with all of the content and functionality they had originally.
xxiv
In OZ Optics Limited v. Hakimoglu, 2009 Cal. App. Upub. LEXIS 2952, an execu- tive ran a “scrubbing” program on a company laptop prior to handing it over, and a $90,000 sanction was ordered.
cause there was no evidence that a claim or defense had been lost as a result.
xxv 2009 WL 4070952 (Wash. Nov. 25, 2009). xxvi See Bray & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 5218035 (M.D. Fla Aug. 3, 2009); 2010 WL 55595 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2010).
xxvii See citation in footnote xv. xxviii Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14573 (S.D.TEX Feb. 19, 2010).
56 The court refused to give a terminating sanction be
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68