Sanctions for e-discovery violations: By the numbers

Duke Law Journal

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 789-864

  Willoughby Jr , Dan H ^a   Jones, Rose Hunter ^a   Antine, Gregory R ^a  

^a King and Spalding   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650486988     PISSN: 00127086     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (373)

1. See infra Appendix A. Modern cases may involve not only ESI but also paper documents. Some of the cases involving e-discovery sanctions include discovery of both ESI and paper documents.
2. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(e).
3. For amendments and supplements of state rules regarding ESI, see, for example, Order Amending Rules 16(b), 16(c), 16.3, 26(b), 26.1, 26.2, 33(c), 34, 37(g), & 45, Ariz. Rules of Civil Procedure, No. R-06-0034 (Ariz. Sept. 5, 2007), available at http://www.supreme.state.az.us/rules/ramd_pdf/r-06-0034.pdf.
4. Order Amending Rules of Trial Procedure, No. 94S00 (Ind. Sept. 10, 2007), available at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/orders/rule-amendments/2007/trial-091007.pdf, which both closely track the December 1, 2006, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. For a bill that adopts some aspects of the December 1, 2006, amendments to the Federal Rules but that also includes several nonconforming provisions.
6. see Electronic Discovery Act, A.B. 5, 2009-2010 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2009).
7. For amendments and supplements that involve local rules regarding ESI, see, for example, Suggested Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (D. Md. 2007), at 1, available at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/news/news/ESIProtocol.pdf, which states that its purpose "is to facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive conduct of discovery involving ESI in civil cases," and Guidelines for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (D. Kan. Feb. 1, 2008), available at http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/guidelines/electronicdiscoveryguidelines.pdf, which states that "[t]hese guidelines are intended to facilitate compliance with the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45, as amended December 1, 2006 and December 1, 2007, relating to the discovery of ESI.".
8. See, e.g., FED. R. EVID. 502 (as amended Jan. 5, 2009) (addressing issues relating to the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including inadvertent disclosure and subject-matter waiver).
9. Compare FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(B) (2006) (specifying different procedures and requirements for the discovery of "not reasonably accessible" ESI), with FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(B) (2002) (containing no such provision for the discovery of ESI).
10. See, e.g., SEVENTH CIRCUIT ELEC. DISCOVERY PILOT PROGRAM, PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION 13 (2009), available at http://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov/Statement-Phase One.pdf ("The purpose of these Principles is...to promote, whenever possible, the early resolution of disputes regarding the discovery of electronically stored information....").
11. FED. R. CIV. P. 1.
12. See generally ADVISORY COMM. ON FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, REPORT OF THE CIVIL RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (2006), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/Reports/CV06-2006.pdf (recommending several changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
13. See AM. COLL. OF TRIAL LAWYERS & INST. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE AM. LEGAL SYS., INTERIM REPORT ON THE JOINT PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS TASK FORCE ON DISCOVERY AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM 3 (2008), available at http://www.actl.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=All_Publications&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3650 ("Discovery costs far too much and has become an end to itself.
14. The discovery rules in particular are impractical in that they promote full discovery as a value above almost everything else. Electronic discovery, in particular, needs a serious overhaul." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
15. See infra Figures 1 and 2.
16. See, e.g., Gamby v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 06-11020, 2009 WL 127782, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20), objection denied, 2009 WL 963116 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2009) (dismissing the action for discovery failures).
17. ("Defendant's performance can be explained only by monumental incompetence, inexcusable neglect, or purposeful evasion. None is sufficient to avoid responsibility or sanction. Enough is enough.").
18. Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05cv1958-B (BLM), 2008 WL 66932 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7), vacated in part, 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008).
19. Metro. Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int'l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), adhered to on reconsideration by No. 00 Civ. 3613(LAP), 2004 WL 1943099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2004).
20. See Qualcomm, 2008 WL 66932, at *17 ("Accordingly, for its monumental and intentional discovery violation, Qualcomm is ordered to pay $8,568,633.24 to Broadcom....").
21. Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. at 231 ("Plaintiff's motion for judgment as to liability against defendants and for additional sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees necessitated by the discovery abuse by defendants and their counsel... is granted....").
22. Pension Comm. v. Banc of Am. Sec. LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 496-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
23. ("I conclude that no plaintiff engaged in willful misconduct. However,... I find that [some plaintiffs] acted with gross negligence, and [other plaintiffs] acted in a negligent manner.").
24. See Technical Sales Assocs. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., No. 07-11745, 2009 WL 1212809, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009) ("Now, an electronic discovery dispute has become the sideshow which eclipses the circus.").
25. Oscher v. Solomon Tropp Law Grp. (In re Atl. Int'l Mortg. Co.), 352 B.R. 503, 505 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006) ("The matter before this Court presents a deplorable scenario under which the ultimate issues raised by the pleadings are completely overcome by discovery disputes which have gained their own life.").
26. See infra Part I.
27. See, e.g., AM. COLL. OF TRIAL LAWYERS & INST. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE AM. LEGAL SYS., FINAL REPORT ON THE JOINT PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS TASK FORCE ON DISCOVERY AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM 1, 14-17 (2009), available at http://www.actl.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4008 (expressing the need for "a framework for developing rules of reasonableness and proportionality").
28. Thomas Y. Allman, Amending the Federal Rules (Again): Finding the Best Path to an Effective Duty to Preserve, ENGAGE, Sept. 2010, at 92, 94, available at http://www.fedsoc.org/doclib/20100910_AllmanEngage11.2.pdf.
29. Matthew S. Makara, Note, My Dog Ate My Email: Creating a Comprehensive Adverse Inference Instruction Standard for Spoliation of Electronic Evidence, 42 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 683, 683 (2009) (arguing for a comprehensive adverse-inference-instruction standard).
30. See, e.g., United States v. IBM Corp., 58 F.R.D. 556, 559 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (denying the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant to pay for the reconstruction of a destroyed database, but ordering the defendant to deposit the documents necessary for reconstructing the database with the court).
31. See, e.g., Allen Pen Co. v. Springfield Photo Mount Co., 653 F.2d 17, 23-24 (1st Cir. 1981) (declining to sanction the defendant, who improperly destroyed computer records, because there was no evidence of bad faith and the plaintiff could have developed the evidence from third parties).
32. Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., 593 F. Supp. 1443, 1455-56 (C.D. Cal. 1984) (awarding the plaintiff monetary sanctions and default judgment based on the defendant's bad faith destruction of paper and computer records after the lawsuit was filed).
33. Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984).
34. For the annual number of sanction cases and sanction awards, see infra Appendix B.
35. District courts in six states, Alaska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, have not issued written opinions regarding sanctions for e-discovery violations.
36. See Canton v. Kmart Corp., No. 1:05-cv-143, 2009 WL 2058908, at *1-3 (D.V.I. July 13, 2009) (granting the plaintiff's motion for a spoliation-of-evidence jury instruction to sanction the defendant for the failure to preserve videotape and other evidence).
37. Nieves v. Kmart Corp., No. 2005-CV-0024, 2009 WL 1605623, at *1-2 (D.V.I. June 8, 2009) (denying the plaintiff's motion for a spoliation-of-video-evidence instruction).
38. Dowling v. United States, No. 2000-CV-0049, 2008 WL 4534174, at *2 (D.V.I. Oct. 6, 2008) (denying the plaintiff's motion for sanctions but granting a spoliation-of-evidence instruction due to the defendant's failure to preserve audiotape evidence).
39. Covad Commc'ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 260 F.R.D. 5, 9 (D.D.C. 2009) (staying the plaintiff's motion for sanctions concerning the defendant's failure to produce ESI documents in the proper electronic format).
40. Century ML-Cable Corp. v. Carrillo, 43 F. Supp. 2d 176, 185 (D.P.R. 1998) (sanctioning the defendant for destroying a laptop and awarding default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs).
41. O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., 575 F.3d 567, 587-88 (6th Cir. 2009) (reversing the district court's denial of an adverse-inference-instruction sanction for the spoliation of reports stored on a computer hard drive and remanding for consideration of whether appellees knew, or should have known, that the destroyed information may have been relevant to future litigation).
42. Ibarra v. Baker, 338 F. App'x 457, 470 (5th Cir. 2009) (reversing the district court's sanctions against the defendant's attorney for the client's deletion of emails because there was no finding of bad faith evidenced by an intent to destroy adverse information).
43. Brookhaven Typesetting Servs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 332 F. App'x 387, 389 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming the district court's refusal to grant terminating sanctions for the destruction of electronic source code).
44. Trask-Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672, 680 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that a showing of bad faith is a prerequisite to imposing sanctions for the destruction of evidence).
45. Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306, 323 (4th Cir. 2008) (instructing the district court that a finding of "bad faith" is not essential for an adverse-inference instruction for prelitigation spoliation and suggesting that "intentional," "willful," or "deliberate" conduct may be sufficient (quoting Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148, 156 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted))).
46. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727, 738-40 (10th Cir. 2005) (reversing the district court's order of dismissal for failure to preserve electronic data when the district court failed to provide a sufficient record of its reasoning and when no evidence of willfulness, bad faith, or culpability was presented).
47. Koken v. Black & Veatch Constr., Inc., 426 F.3d 39, 53 (1st Cir. 2005) (affirming the district court's denial of monetary sanctions for discovery violations involving electronic files).
48. Inst. for Motivational Living v. Doulos Inst. for Strategic Consulting, 110 F. App'x 283, 288-89 (3d Cir. 2004) (upholding the district court's findings of civil contempt for the deletion of emails in violation of a discovery order but reversing the award of legal fees that went beyond compensating the plaintiff for the actual loss it incurred from the violation).
49. Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739, 745-50 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming an adverse-inference-jury-instruction sanction for the destruction of a radio tape when the requisite element of bad faith was proven based on evidence indicating "an intent to destroy the evidence for the purpose of obstructing or suppressing the truth").
50. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (reversing the district court's denial of an adverse-inference jury instruction for the appellee's failure to produce emails in time for trial and holding that "discovery sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, may be imposed where a party has breached a discovery obligation not only through bad faith or gross negligence, but also through ordinary negligence").
51. Bashir v. Amtrak, 119 F.3d 929, 931 (11th Cir. 1997) (affirming the district court's denial of an adverse-inference-juryinstruction sanction for the unexplained loss of a train-speed-recorder tape when no evidence of bad faith was shown).
52. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rambus, Inc., 523 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (denying as moot the plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions due to the defendant's spoliation of evidence because the defendant offered to pay the full amount of the attorneys' fees in dispute).
53. In re Fannie Mae Sec. Litig., 552 F.3d 814, 821 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (affirming a sanction for the delay in production of ESI when a nonparty subpoena recipient failed to produce ESI pursuant to a stipulated discovery schedule).
54. Elec. Mach. Enters., Inc. v. Hunt Constr. Grp. (In re Elec. Mach. Enters., Inc.), 416 B.R. 801, 871-75 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009); Riverside Healthcare, Inc. v. Sysco Food Servs. of San Antonio, LP (In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc.), 393 B.R. 422, 428-30 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008).
55. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Air Grp. (In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.), Bankr. No. 03-00817, Adv. No. 06-90026, 2007 WL 3172642, at *1 (Bankr. D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2007); In re Kmart Corp., 371 B.R. 823, 843-854 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007).
56. United States v. Krause (In re Krause), 367 B.R. 740, 758-59 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007), aff'd, Nos. 08-1132, 08-1136, 2009 WL 5064348, at *8-9 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009).
57. Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc. (In re Quintus Corp.), 353 B.R. 77, 82-84 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), aff'd in part, Nos. 01-501, 01-503, Adv. No. 04-53074, Civ. No. 06-769 SLR, 2007 WL 4233665 (D. Del. Nov. 29, 2007).
58. Oscher v. Solomon Tropp Law Grp. (In re Atl. Int'l Mortg. Co.) 352 B.R. 503, 505 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006); Cohen Steel Supply, Inc. v. Fagnant (In re Fagnant), Nos. 03-10496-JMD, 03-1348-JMD, 2004 WL 2944126, at *1-3 (Bankr. D.N.H. Dec. 13, 2004); In re LTV Steel Co., 307 B.R. 37, 42-50 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2004).
59. Consol. Edison Co. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 228, 252-63 (2009); Morse Diesel Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 220, 221-22 (2008).
60. Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 1003, 1004-07 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986).
61. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 347 F. App'x 275 (9th Cir. 2009); Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., 580 F.3d 119 (3d Cir. 2009); O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009); Ibarra v. Baker, 338 F. App'x 457 (5th Cir. 2009); Wong v. Thomas, 341 F. App'x 765 (3d Cir. 2009).
62. Brookhaven Typesetting Servs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 332 F. App'x 387 (9th Cir. 2009); Sentis Grp. v. Shell Oil Co., 559 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2009); In re Fannie Mae, 552 F.3d 814; Tri-Cnty. Motors, Inc., v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 301 F. App'x 11 (2d Cir. 2008); Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008); Samsung Elecs., 523 F.3d 1374; Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 270 F. App'x 372 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Trask-Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2008).
63. Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams., LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008); Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 261 F. App'x 50 (9th Cir. 2007); Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007); Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Wade, 485 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2007).
64. Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 186 F. App'x 624 (6th Cir. 2006); Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2006); Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005); Koken v. Black & Veatch Constr., Inc., 426 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2005); Myrick v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc., 395 F.3d 485 (4th Cir. 2005); Rowe v. Albertsons, Inc., 116 F. App'x 171 (10th Cir. 2004).
65. Inst. for Motivational Living v. Doulos Inst. for Strategic Consulting, 110 F. App'x 283 (3d Cir. 2004); Morris v. Union Pac. R.R., 373 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2004); Computer Task Grp., Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004); Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004).
66. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002); Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2001); Bashir v. Amtrak, 119 F.3d 929 (11th Cir. 1997); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1993); Allen Pen Co. v. Springfield Photo Mount Co., 653 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1981).
67. See generally Symposium, Sanctions in Electronic Discovery Cases: Views from the Judges, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 1, 4-5 (2009) (discussing the different sanction powers).
68. A court must impose sanctions under Rule 26(g) against the party, its counsel, or both, when the party fails to meet its disclosure obligations under Rule 26. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g)(3).
69. The completeness and accuracy of these disclosures must be certified by an attorney of record.
70. This certification requirement includes an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the disclosures.
71. Sanctions may include the imposition of expenses and attorneys' fees incurred by the opposing party due to the violation.
72. Rule 37(b) provides for sanctions against a party for violations of a discovery order.
73. It lists potential sanctions ranging from dismissal to evidentiary preclusion to a stay of proceedings until the order is stayed. Id. 37(b)(2)(A).
74. These sanctions include (i) directing that matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order, except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
75. Additionally, the court must require that the noncompliant party, its attorneys, or both, "pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.".
76. The court may sanction a noncompliant party under Rule 37(c) if the party does not make the required disclosure under Rule 26(a) or properly supplement its disclosures.
77. Under Rule 37(c)(1), the court may prevent the use of the evidence or witnesses not provided.
78. The court may also require the payment of reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees, inform the jury of the party's failure, and impose any of the other sanctions at the court's disposal under Rule 37.
79. Should a party fail to respond or object to a request under Rule 34, the court may choose to sanction the party with any of the sanctions available under Rule 37(b).
80. The court may also require that the sanctioned party, its attorney, or both pay the reasonable expenses associated with the motion.
81. The court may sanction only attorneys under this provision. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (2006).
82. The court may impose as a sanction the payment of the excess costs and attorneys' fees that result from the offending attorney's conduct.
83. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)).
84. New Salida Ditch Co. v. United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-00391-JLK-KLM, 2009 WL 2399933 (D. Colo. July 31, 2009); Technical Sales Assocs. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., No. 07-11745, 2009 WL 728520 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2009); Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 07-10259, 2009 WL 81103 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2009).
85. Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Operations, Inc., No. CIV-S-07-0945 GEB GGH, 2008 WL 5101451 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008); Doe v. Norwalk Cmty. Coll., 248 F.R.D. 372 (D. Conn. 2007); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-0095, 2007 WL 1514005 (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2007); School-Link Techs., Inc. v. Applied Res., Inc., Civil Action No. 05-2088-JWL, 2007 WL 677647 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2007); Rodgers v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., No. 05 C 0502, 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007).
86. PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 05-CV-70404-DT, 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006); Phx. Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., No. 05 Civ. 4837(HB), 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006); Adams v. Gateway, Inc., No. 2:02-CV-106, 2006 WL 2563418 (D. Utah Mar. 6, 2006) (ruling on de novo review of a magistrate judge's reports and recommendations and imposing sanctions); McDowell v. District of Columbia, 233 F.R.D. 192 (D.D.C. 2006).
87. Broccoli v. Echostar Commc'ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D. Md. 2005); Network Computing Servs. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 223 F.R.D. 392 (D.S.C. 2004); Hahn v. Minn. Beef Indus., Inc., No. 00-2282 RHKSRN, 2002 WL 32667146 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2002); Mktg. Specialists, Inc. v. Bruni, 129 F.R.D. 35 (W.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 923 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1990); Oscher v. Solomon Tropp Law Grp. (In re Atl. Int'l Mortg. Co.), 352 B.R. 503, 505 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006).
88. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 270 F. App'x 372 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., No. 1:07-CV-258, 2009 WL 2168717 (E.D. Tenn. July 16, 2009); Hanni v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. C-08-00732 CW (EDL), 2009 WL 1505286 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2009); Grochocinski v. Schlossberg, 402 B.R. 825 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
89. Gucci Am., Inc., v. Gucci, No. 07 Civ. 6820(RMB)(JCF), 2009 WL 440463 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 20, 2009); Gamby v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 06-11020, 2009 WL 127782 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20), objection denied, 2009 WL 963116 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2009); Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A., No. 3: 06-CV-0271-B, 2008 WL 3261095 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2008); Aecon Bldgs., Inc. v. Zurich N. Am., 253 F.R.D. 655 (W.D. Wash. 2008); Sterle v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., No. 3:06 CV 01584(DJS), 2008 WL 961216 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2008); MeccaTech, Inc. v. Kiser, No. 8:05CV570, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008).
90. Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., No. CV-05-3061-RHW, 2007 WL 2327073 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2007); Mother, LLC. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., No. C06-5540 JKA, 2007 WL 2302974 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2007); Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm't, No. 05 C 7184, 2007 WL 627607 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007).
91. NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, No. 04 Civ. 9240(RCC), 2007 WL 258181 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007); Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 5316 RMB MHD, 2006 WL 3476735 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2006); Elion v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 05-0992 (PLF), 2006 WL 2583694 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2006).
92. Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc., No. 04-2478, 2006 WL 1537394 (D. Kan. June 1, 2006); Martin v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 804CV02328T23MAP, 2006 WL 148991 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2006); Shank v. Kitsap County, No. C04-5843RJB, 2005 WL 2099793 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2005).
93. Lyondell-Citgo Ref., LP v. Petroleos de Venez., S.A., No. 02 Civ. 0795(CBM), 2005 WL 1026461 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005); In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig., Nos. 5:98CV2876, 1:01CV1078, 2004 WL 3192729 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2004).
94. Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 219 F.R.D. 93 (D. Md. 2003); Black & Veatch Int'l Co. v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 211 F.R.D. 641 (D. Kan. 2002); GTFM, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 98 CIV. 7724 RPP, 2000 WL 335558 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2000).
95. United States v. Krause (In re Krause), Nos. 08-1132, 08-1136, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009); Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Pinstripe, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc., No. 07-CV-620-GKF-PJC, 2009 WL 2252131 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2009).
96. Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. Md. 2009); Mullaney v. Hilton Hotels Corp., Civil No. 07-00313 ACK-LEK, 2009 WL 2006828 (D. Haw. June 30), adopted as modified by 2009 WL 2365561 (D. Haw. July 29, 2009); Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass'n, 264 F.R.D. 517 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Kvitka v. Puffin Co., No. 1:06-CV-0858, 2009 WL 385582 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2009).
97. SD Prot., Inc. v. Del Rio, 587 F. Supp. 2d 429 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co. v. Glasforms, Inc., No. C06-3359, 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008); Arteria Prop. Pty Ltd. v. Universal Funding V.T.O., Inc., No. 05-4896 (PGS), 2008 WL 4513696 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2008); Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 3:05-CV-0321-RAM, 2008 WL 2142219 (D. Nev. May 16, 2008).
98. Wells v. Berger, Newmark & Fenchel, P.C., Civil Action No. 07 C 3061, 2008 WL 4365972 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2008); Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008); Auto. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., No. 06-15100, 2007 WL 3333016 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2007); Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, Civil No. 07-0260 (JBS), 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007); Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. C 03-5340 JF (RS), 2007 WL 1848665 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2007).
99. World Courier v. Barone, No. C 06-3072 TEH, 2007 WL 1119196 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007); Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, No. C 04-03946 JW, 2007 WL 878575 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2007); Tilton v. McGraw-Hill Cos., No. C06-0098RSL, 2007 WL 777523 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2007); Qantum Commc'ns Corp. v. Star Broad., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Optowave Co. v. Nikitin, No. 6:05-cv-1083-Orl-22DAB, 2006 WL 3231422 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006).
100. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Easton Sports, Inc. v. Warrior LaCrosse, Inc., No. 05-72031, 2006 WL 2811261 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2006); Creative Sci. Sys., Inc. v. Forex Capital Mkts., LLC, No. C 04-03746 JF (RS), 2006 WL 870973 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2006); DaimlerChrysler Motors v. Bill Davis Racing, Inc., No. CIV.A. 03-72265, 2005 WL 3502172 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2005); Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004); Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., No. C03-1158P, 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), aff'd, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006).
101. AdvantaCare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, No. 03-04496, 2004 WL 1837997 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004); Brick v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 04-CV-0129E(F), 2004 WL 1811430 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2004); Arista Records, Inc. v. Sakfield Holding Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2004); GE Harris Ry. Elecs., L.L.C v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., No. 99-070-GMS, 2004 WL 5702740 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2004); Invision Media Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 02Civ.5461(NRB)(KNF), 2004 WL 396037 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2004).
102. Trigon Ins. Co. v. United States, 204 F.R.D. 277 (E.D. Va. 2001); United States ex rel. Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 463 (N.D. Okla. 1998); Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 179 F.R.D. 622 (D. Utah 1998), aff'd in part and rev'd on other grounds, 222 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2000); Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Air Grp. (In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.), Bankr. No. 03-00817, Adv. No. 06-90026, 2007 WL 3172642 (Bankr. D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2007).
103. Plunk v. Village of Elwood, No. 07 C 88, 2009 WL 1444436 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2009); Bd. of Regents v. BASF Corp., No. 4:04CV3356, 2007 WL 3342423 (D. Neb. Nov. 5, 2007); Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 239 F.R.D. 376 (D.N.J. 2006); E*Trade Sec. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, 230 F.R.D. 582 (D. Minn. 2005).
104. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 2009 WL 3859272 (E.D.N.Y Nov. 18, 2009); Wixon v. Wyndham Resort Dev. Corp., No. C 07-02361 JSW, 2009 WL 3075649 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009); Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co. (Bray & Gillespie II), 259 F.R.D. 591 (M.D. Fla.), rejected in part by No. 6:07-cv-0222-Orl-35KRS, 2009 WL 5606058 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2009), and adopted in part by No. 6:07-cv-0222-Orl-35KRS, 2010 WL 55595 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2010).
105. Arista Records, LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Am. Friends of Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-CV-1798, 2009 WL 1617773 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2009); Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 260 F.R.D. 682 (N.D. Ga. 2009); Adele S.R.L. v. Filene's Basement, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 244, 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009); Smith v. Slifer Smith & Frampton/Vail Assocs. Real Estate, LLC, No. 06-cv-02206-JLK, 2009 WL 482603 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 2009).
106. Lessley v. City of Madison, No. 4:07-cv-136-DFHWGH, 2008 WL 4977328 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2008); Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., No. 07-01201, 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008); R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 251 F.R.D. 520 (S.D. Cal. 2008); In re Rosenthal, Civil Action No. H-04-186, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008); Finley v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 249 F.R.D. 329 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
107. Fleming v. City of New York, No. 01 Civ. 8885, 2007 WL 4302501 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2007); APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, No. 07 CV 1462, 2007 WL 3046233 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007); Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., No. CV 05-1516-RSWL SHX, 2007 WL 2758571 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007); In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins. Coverage Cases, 243 F.R.D. 114 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Claredi Corp. v. Seebeyond Tech. Corp., No. 4:04CV1304 RWS, 2007 WL 735018 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007); Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007).
108. May v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, No. 2:05-cv-918, 2006 WL 3827511 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 28, 2006); Ferrero v. Henderson, 341 F. Supp. 2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2004), withdrawn in part, No. 3:00CV00462, 2005 WL 1802134 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2005); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (Zubulake V), 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Marcin Eng'g, LLC v. Founders at Grizzly Ranch, LLC, 219 F.R.D. 516 (D. Colo. 2003).
109. Metro. Opera Ass'n, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int'l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), adhered to on reconsideration by No. 00 Civ. 3613(LAP), 2004 WL 1943099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2004); Poole ex rel. Elliot v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494 (D. Md. 2000); Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Fagnant v. Cohen Steel Supply, Inc. (In re Fagnant), Nos. 03-10496-JMD, 03-1348-JMD, 2004 WL 2944126 (Bankr. D.N.H. Dec. 13, 2004).
110. Inst. for Motivational Living v. Doulos Inst. for Strategic Consulting 110 F. App'x 283 (3d Cir. 2004); Fharmacy Records v. Nassar (Fharmacy Records II), 572 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
111. For the annual number of defendants and plaintiffs sanctioned, see infra Appendix B.
112. See infra Appendix C.
113. See Shank v. Kitsap County, No. C04-5843RJB, 2005 WL 2099793, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2005) (prohibiting the defendant from introducing digital audio recordings due to lastminute discovery compliance).
114. Thompson v. U.S. Dep't. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 219 F.R.D. 93, 104-05 (D. Md. 2003) (precluding the defendant from introducing eighty thousand email records produced after the court-imposed discovery deadlines).
115. See R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 251 F.R.D. 520, 528 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (precluding the defendant from introducing expert witness testimony that relied on ESI disclosed after the deadline imposed by the discovery order).
116. Elion v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 05-0992 (PLF), 2006 WL 2583694, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2006) (precluding the defendant from offering any witness testimony regarding an email not disclosed in a timely fashion).
117. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-0095, 2007 WL 1514005, at *1 (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2007) (precluding the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction as a sanction for the defendant's failure to produce information concerning contacts with the state).
118. Kamatani v. BenQ Corp., Civil Action No. 2:03-CV-437, 2005 WL 2455825, at *15-16 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2005) (striking down defenses relating to a specific license agreement as a sanction for the defendant's bad faith representations to the court and its failure to produce the requested email documents).
119. Arista Records, Inc. v. Sakfield Holding Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d. 27, 35 (D.D.C. 2004) (waiving the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction as a sanction for the defendant's failure to comply with the court's discovery orders).
120. See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Lowry Dev., LLC, Civil Action Nos. 1:06CV097 LTS-RHW, 1:06CV412 LTS-RHW, 2007 WL 4268776, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 30, 2007) (reducing the burden of proof to a preponderance of the evidence standard as a sanction for the destruction of computer data in a contract case concerning mutual mistake).
121. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Toshiba Am., Inc., No. 2:05-CV-479, 2007 WL 2021776, at *4 (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2007) (taking away two juror strikes from the defendant as a sanction for the defendant's intentional failure to produce electronic source code).
122. In addition, the court limited the defendant's time for voir dire and opening statements to one-half the time allotted to the plaintiff, prohibited the defendant from offering any expert testimony regarding noninfringement, instructed the jury on the court's finding of intentionally withholding documents, and awarded attorneys' fees and costs resulting from the defendant's withholding of documents. Id.
123. (limiting closing statements to one-third of the time allotted to the plaintiff as a sanction for the defendant's intentional failure to produce electronic code).
124. See Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp. v. Humana, Inc., No. 08-20424-CIV, 2009 WL 982460, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2009) (permitting further depositions after emails were discovered one month before trial).
125. Lava Trading, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 03 Civ.7037 PKC MHD, 2005 WL 459267, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2005) (reopening discovery depositions due to emails produced after the close of expert discovery).
126. See Sterle v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., No. 3:06 CV 01584(DJS), 2008 WL 961216, at *10, *14 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2008) (granting the plaintiff permission to inspect electronic records as a sanction for the defense attorney's "obstructive tactics" during discovery).
127. Hahn v. Minn. Beef Indus., Inc., No. 00-2282 RHKSRN, 2002 WL 32667146, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2002) (ordering the reinspection of a computer database after inaccurate and incomplete information was provided).
128. See Pinstripe, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc., No. 07-CV-620-GKF-PJC, 2009 WL 2252131, at *4 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2009) (ordering the defendant to pay $2,500 to a bar association to support a seminar program on litigation hold orders and preserving electronic data).
129. See Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05cv1958-B (BLM), 2008 WL 66932, at *18-19 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7) (ordering the sanctioned attorneys to attend a court-created ethics program), vacated in part, 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008).
130. (ordering the sanctioned attorneys to appear before the state bar for further ethical investigations).
131. See Claredi Corp. v. Seebeyond Tech. Corp., No. 4:04CV1304 RWS, 2007 WL 735018, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007) (ordering the defendant to pay $20,000 to the clerk of court as a sanction for unnecessarily prolonging and increasing the expense of litigation).
132. Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 81, 111 (D.N.J. 2006) (ordering the defendant to pay a fine to the clerk of court for "unnecessarily draining the court's time and resources"); Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 559 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (ordering the defendant to pay $15,000 to the clerk of court for consuming the court's time and resources).
133. See Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00299-JOF-LTW, 2009 WL 4798117, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2009) (barring the plaintiff from taking depositions until it narrowed its electronic discovery requests).
134. Peschel v. City of Missoula, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Mont. 2009); Kvitka v. Puffin Co., No. 1:06-CV-0858, 2009 WL 385582 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2009); Gutman v. Klein, No. 03 CV 1570(BMC)(RML), 2008 WL 4682208 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15), adopted by No. 03 Civ. 1570(BMC), 2008 WL 5084182 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2008).
135. Atl. Recording Corp. v. Howell, No. 06-CV-02076-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 4080008 (D. Ariz. Aug. 29, 2008); MeccaTech, Inc. v. Kiser, No. 8:05CV570, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008), adopted in part by 2009 WL 1152267 (D. Neb. Apr. 23, 2009).
136. Fharmacy Records v. Nassar (Fharmacy Records I), 248 F.R.D. 507 (E.D. Mich. 2008), aff'd, 379 F. App'x 522 (6th Cir. 2010); Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, No. 2:06-cv-01093 FMC-JCx, 2007 WL 4877701 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2007); Ameriwood Indus. v. Liberman, No. 4:06CV524DJS, 2007 WL 5110313 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007); Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006); Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., No. 05 C 3003, 2006 WL 1308629 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2006).
137. Arista Records, L.L.C. v. Tschirhart, 241 F.R.D. 462 (W.D. Tex. 2006); Commc'ns Ctr., Inc. v. Hewitt, No. Civ.S-03-1968 WBS KJ, 2005 WL 3277983 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2005); Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., No. C03-1158P, 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), aff'd, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006); Kucala Enters., Ltd. v. Auto Wax Co., No. 02 C 1403, 2003 WL 21230605, (N.D. Ill. May 27), adopted as modified by 2003 WL 22433095 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2003).
138. Century ML-Cable Corp. v. Carrillo, 43 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.P.R. 1998); Cabinetware Inc. v. Sullivan, No. 90-313 CLKK, 1991 WL 327959 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 1991); Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Fundware, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 166 (D. Colo. 1990); Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984); United States v. Krause (In re Krause), 367 B.R. 740 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007), aff'd, Nos. 08-1132, 08-1136, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009).
139. Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc. (In re Quintus Corp.), 353 B.R. 77 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), aff'd in part, Nos. 01-501, 01-502, 01-503, Adv. No. 04-53074, Civ. No. 06-769 SLR, 2007 WL 4233665 (D. Del. Nov. 29, 2007).
140. Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 186 F. App'x 624 (6th Cir. 2006); Computer Task Grp., Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1993); 1100 W., LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-cv-01670-LJMJMS, 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009).
141. Gamby v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 06-11020, 2009 WL 127782 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20), objection denied, 2009 WL 963116 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2009); Qantum Commc'ns Corp. v. Star Broad., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Appraisal Mgmt. Co. III v. FNC, Inc., No. 1:04CV1158, 2005 WL 3088561 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2005).
142. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 270 F. App'x 372 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 82 (D. Conn. 2008), aff'd, No. 08-4518-cv, 2010 WL 3325962 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2010); Koninklike Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., No. 2:05-cv-1532-RLH-GWF, 2007 WL 3101248 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2007), appeal dismissed, 539 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2008).
143. Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., No. CV-05-3061-RHW, 2007 WL 2327073 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2007); Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm't, No. 05 C 7184, 2007 WL 627607 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007); PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 05-CV-70404-DT, 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006); Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Servs. N. Am. LLC, No. 03 C 760, 2006 WL 2808158 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2006), aff'd sub nom. Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams. LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008).
144. In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig., Nos. 5:98CV2876, 01:01CV1078, 2004 WL 3192729 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2004); Metro. Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int'l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), adhered to on reconsideration by No. 00 Civ. 3613(LAP), 2004 WL 1943099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2004).
145. Tech. Recycling, 186 F. App'x at 627; Crown Life, 995 F.2d at 1383; Red Spot, 2009 WL 1605118, at *10; Atl. Recording, 2008 WL 4080008, at *1; S. New Eng. Tel., 251 F.R.D. at 93-94; Fharmacy Records I, 248 F.R.D. at 530; Columbia Pictures, 2007 WL 4877701, at *8; Koninklike Philips, 2007 WL 3101248, at *13.
146. Perez-Farias, 2007 WL 2327073, at *5; Qantum, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 1272; Plasse, 448 F. Supp. 2d at 308; DaimlerChrysler, 2006 WL 2808158, at *5; Commc'ns Ctr., 2005 WL 3277983, at *2; Telxon, 2004 WL 3192729, at *20; Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. at 186; Cabinetware, 1991 WL 327959, at *2.
147. Computer Assocs., 133 F.R.D. at 170.
148. Columbia Pictures, 2007 WL 4877701, at *5.
149. Kvitka v. Puffin Co., No. 1:06-CV-0858, 2009 WL 385582, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2009); Kucala Enters., Ltd. v. Auto Wax Co., No. 02 C 1403, 2003 WL 21230605, at *8 (N.D. Ill. May 27), adopted as modified by 2003 WL 22433095 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2003); United States v. Krause (In re Krause), 367 B.R. 740, 770 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007), aff'd, Nos. 08-1132, 08-1136, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009).
150. Arista Records, L.L.C. v. Tschirhart, 241 F.R.D. 462, 465 (W.D. Tex. 2006).
151. MeccaTech, Inc. v. Kiser, No. 8:05CV570, 2008 WL 6010937, at *9 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008).
152. Ameriwood Indus. v. Liberman, No. 4:06CV524-DJS, 2007 WL 5110313, at *7 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007).
153. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 270 F. App'x 372 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Computer Task Grp., Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004); Crown-Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1993); 1100 W., LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-cv-01670-LJM-JML, 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009).
154. Gamby v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 06-11020, 2009 WL 127782 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20), objection denied, 2009 WL 963116 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2009); Kvitka, 2009 WL 385582, at *5; Gutman v. Klein, No. 03 CV 1570(BMC)(RML), 2008 WL 4682208 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15), adopted by No. 03 Civ. 1570(BMC), 2008 WL 5084182 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2008).
155. S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 82 (D. Conn. 2008), aff'd, No. 08-4518-cv, 2010 WL 3325962 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2010); Fharmacy Records v. Nassar (Fharmacy Records I), 248 F.R.D. 507 (E.D. Mich. 2008), aff'd, 379 F. App'x 522 (6th Cir. 2010); Koninklike Philips Elecs. v. KXD Tech., Inc., No. 2:05-cv-1532-RLH-GWF, 2007 WL 3101248 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2007), appeal dismissed, 539 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2008).
156. Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., No. CV-05-3061-RHW, 2007 WL 2327073 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2007); Qantum Commc'ns Corp. v. Star Broad., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2007); PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 05-CV-70404-DT, 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006); Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006).
157. Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Servs. N. Am. LLC, No. 03 C 760, 2006 WL 2808158 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2006), aff'd sub nom. Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams. LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008); In re Telxon Corp. Sec. Litig., Nos. 5:98CV2876, 1:01CV1078, 2004 WL 3192729 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2004); Kucala, 2003 WL 21230605, at *8; Century ML-Cable Corp. v. Carrillo, 43 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.P.R. 1998); In re Krause, 367 B.R. at 763.
158. See, e.g., Crown Life, 995 F.2d at 1382-85; Kvitka, 2009 WL 385582, at *3; Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, No. 2:06-cv-01093 FMC-JCx, 2007 WL 4877701, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2007).
159. Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., No. C03-1158P, 2004 WL 5571412, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), aff'd, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006); Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., 593 F. Supp. 1443, 1446 (C.D. Cal. 1984).
160. See, e.g., Grange Mut., 270 F. App'x at 373 (finding a judgment of liability against the defendant was warranted by the defendant's willful, prejudicial, and repeated obstruction of discovery and disregard of court orders).
161. Koninklike Philips, 2007 WL 3101248, at *23 (noting a "consistent pattern of discovery delay and obstruction by Defendants directed at preventing Plaintiff from obtaining relevant evidence to prove its claims").
162. Perez-Farias, 2007 WL 2327073, at *12 (finding terminating sanctions were warranted when the defendant failed to provide discovery in violation of court orders, failed to pay the plaintiff's costs of bringing discovery motions per the court's orders, neglected to pay sanctions of $500 per day, and repeatedly failed to follow the court's local rules for filing documents).
163. Century ML-Cable, 43 F. Supp. 2d at 185 ("[Defendant] has engaged in contumacious bad faith scorched earth defense tactics in a blatant effort to prevent plaintiffs from proving their case against him.").
164. See, e.g., Arista Records, L.L.C. v. Tschirhart, 241 F.R.D. 462, 465 (W.D. Tex. 2006) ("By destroying the best evidence relating to the central issue in the case, defendant has inflicted the ultimate prejudice upon the plaintiffs.").
165. Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., No. 05 C 3003, 2006 WL 1308629, at *10 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2006) (finding the lost data were "evidence essential to" allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets).
166. Cabinetware Inc. v. Sullivan, No. Civ. S. 90-313 CLKK, 1991 WL 327959, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 1991) (considering source code "essential evidence" in a copyright infringement action).
167. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Fundware, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 166, 170 (D. Colo. 1990) ("Destroying the best evidence relating to the core issue in the case inflicts the ultimate prejudice upon the opposing party.").
168. See Gamby, 2009 WL 127782, at *3 ("Defendant had been grossly negligent, if not wilful, in failing to meet its discovery obligations...." (emphasis added)).
169. Kucala, 2003 WL 21230605, at *7 ("Kucala was at fault by... acting with gross negligence and in flagrant disregard of the court order...." (emphasis added)).
170. Grange Mut., 270 F. App'x at 376; Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 186 F. App'x 624, 633 (6th Cir. 2006); Peschel v. City of Missoula, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1146-47 (D. Mont. 2009); Red Spot, 2009 WL 1605118, at *27-28; Kvitka, 2009 WL 385582, at *6; Gutman, 2008 WL 4682208, at *8.
171. S. New Eng. Tel., 251 F.R.D. at 92; MeccaTech, Inc. v. Kiser, No. 8:05CV570, 2008 WL 6010937, at *9 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008); Fharmacy Records I, 248 F.R.D. at 529; Koninklike Philips, 2007 WL 3101248, at *2-3; Perez-Farias, 2007 WL 2327073, at *9; Ameriwood Indus. v. Liberman, No. 4:06CV524-DJS, 2007 WL 5110313, at *6 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007).
172. Qantum, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 1261; Tschirhart, 241 F.R.D. at 464; Krumwiede, 2006 WL 1308629, at *8; Commc'ns Ctr., Inc. v. Hewitt, No. Civ.S-03-1968 WBS KJ, 2005 WL 3277983, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2005).
173. Leon, 2004 WL 5571412, at *4; Telxon, 2004 WL 3192729, at *26; Metro. Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int'l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), adhered to on reconsideration by No. 00 Civ. 3613(LAP), 2004 WL 1943099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2004); Wm. T. Thompson Co., 593 F. Supp. at 1456.
174. See, e.g., Atl. Recording Corp. v. Howell, No. 06-CV-02076-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 4080008, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 29, 2008); Commc'ns Ctr., 2005 WL 3277983, at *2-3; Kucala, 2003 WL 21230605, at *2; Cabinetware, 1991 WL 327959, at *2.
175. Commc'ns Ctr., 2005 WL 3277983, at *1; Kucala, 2003 WL 21230605, at *1.
176. Atl. Recording, 2008 WL 4080008, at *1.
177. United States v. Krause (In re Krause), 367 B.R. 740, 748 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007), aff'd, Nos. 08-1132, 08-1136, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009).
178. Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. at 222; see also Fharmacy Records I, 248 F.R.D. at 530 ("The actions of the plaintiffs and their attorney in this case are so egregious that they have forfeited their right to proceed in court.").
179. ("[C]onsidering [the actions]... invariably leads to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and their attorney have conducted a campaign of fraud.").
180. PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 05-CV-70404-DT, 2006 WL 3759914, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006) ("[T]here is a point beyond which bumbling and blindness to a party's discovery obligations sufficiently resemble the sort of willful, intentional and malicious conduct that calls for the heavy sanction of judgment by default.").
181. Telxon, 2004 WL 3192729, at *33 ("The only conclusion... is that [the defendant] and/or its counsel engaged in deliberate fraud or was so recklessly indifferent to their responsibilities... that they failed to take the most basic steps to fulfill those responsibilities.").
182. 1100 W., LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-cv-01670-LJM-JMS, 2009 WL 1605118, at *26 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009); Gutman v. Klein, No. 03 CV 1570(BMC)(RML), 2008 WL 4682208, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15), adopted by No. 03 Civ. 1570(BMC), 2008 WL 5084182 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2008).
183. Atl. Recording, 2008 WL 4080008, at *1; S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 82, 90 (D. Conn. 2008), aff'd, No. 08-4518-cv, 2010 WL 3325962 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2010); Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, No. 2:06-cv-01093 FMC-JCx, 2007 WL 4877701, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2007); Koninklike Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., No. 2:05-cv-1532-RLH-GWF, 2007 WL 3101248, at *12-13 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2007), appeal dismissed, 539 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2008); Ameriwood Indus. v. Liberman, No. 4:06CV524-DJS, 2007 WL 5110313, at *4 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007).
184. Arista Records, L.L.C. v. Tschirhart, 241 F.R.D. 462, 464 (W.D. Tex. 2006); Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., No. 05 C 3003, 2006 WL 1308629, at *9 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2006); Century ML-Cable Corp. v. Carrillo, 43 F. Supp. 2d 176, 182-83 (D.P.R. 1998); Cabinetware, 1991 WL 327959, at *3; Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Fundware, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 166, 168 (D. Colo. 1990).
185. Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., 593 F. Supp. 1443, 1455 (C.D. Cal. 1984); In re Krause, 367 B.R. at 746 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 105 on the inherent power of a bankruptcy court); Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc. (In re Quintus Corp.), 353 B.R. 77, 92 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), aff'd in part, Nos. 01-501, 01-502, 01-503, Adv. 04-53074, Civ. 06-769 SLR, 2007 WL 4233665 (D. Del. Nov. 29, 2007).
186. Peschel v. City of Missoula, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1141-42 (D. Mont. 2009); Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 270 F. App'x 372, 376 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Tech. Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor, 186 F. App'x 624, 633, 631 (6th Cir. 2006); Computer Task Grp., Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115-17 (9th Cir. 2004).
187. Crown-Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376, 1381-84 (7th Cir. 1993); Gamby v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 06-11020, 2009 WL 127782, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20), objection denied, 2009 WL 963116 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2009); Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., No. CV-05-3061-RHW, 2007 WL 2327073, at *9 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2007); Giant Screen Sports LLC v. Sky High Entm't, No. 05 C 7184, 2007 WL 627607, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007); PML, 2006 WL 3759914, at *2-4; Commc'ns Ctr., 2005 WL 3277983, at *1; Telxon, 2004 WL 3192729, at *19-21.
188. Kvitka v. Puffin Co., No. 1:06-CV-0858, 2009 WL 385582, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2009); Fharmacy Records I, 248 F.R.D. at 529; Qantum Commc'ns Corp. v. Star Broad., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1249, 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302, 308-11 (D. Mass. 2006); Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., No. C03-1158P, 2004 WL 5571412, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), aff'd, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006).
189. Kucala Enters., Ltd. v. Auto Wax Co., No. 02 C 1403, 2003 WL 21230605, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 27), adopted as modified by 2003 WL 22433095 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2003); Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. at 219-20 (citing 28 U.S.C § 1927 to sanction counsel and also relying on the court's inherent power).
190. Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Servs. N. Am. LLC, No. 03 C 760, 2006 WL 2808158, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2006), aff'd sub nom. Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams. LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008); Appraisal Mgmt. Co. III v. FNC, Inc., No. 1:04CV1158, 2005 WL 3088561, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2005).
191. Grange Mut., 270 F. App'x 372; Tech. Recycling, 186 F. App'x 624; Crown Life, 995 F.2d 1376; Gamby, 2009 WL 127782; Gutman, 2008 WL 4682208; Atl. Recording, 2008 WL 4080008; S. New Eng. Tel., 251 F.R.D. 82; Koninklike Philips, 2007 WL 3101248; Perez-Farias, 2007 WL 2327073.
192. Ameriwood, 2007 WL 5110313; Giant Screen, 2007 WL 627607; PML, 2006 WL 3759914; Plasse, 448 F. Supp. 2d 302; Tschirhart, 241 F.R.D. 462; Krumwiede, 2006 WL 1308629; Appraisal Mgmt., 2005 WL 3088561; Commc'ns Ctr., 2005 WL 3277983; Kucala, 2003 WL 21230605; Telxon, 2004 WL 3192729; Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. 178; Century ML-Cable, 43 F. Supp. 2d 176; Wm. T. Thompson Co., 593 F. Supp. 1443; In re Krause, 367 B.R. 740. One court noted that Rule 37(b)(2)(C) could not be a basis for a dismissal absent a violation of a court order. Fharmacy Records I, 248 F.R.D. at 529.
193. Tech. Recycling, 186 F. App'x 624; Computer Task Grp., 364 F.3d 1112; Crown Life, 995 F.2d 1376; 1100 W., LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-cv-01670-LJM-JMS, 2009 WL 1605118 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009); Gamby, 2009 WL 963116; Gutman, 2008 WL 4682208; Atl. Recording, 2008 WL 4080008; S. New Eng. Tel., 251 F.R.D. 82; MeccaTech, Inc. v. Kiser, No. 8:05CV570, 2008 WL 6010937 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008).
194. Koninklike Philips, 2007 WL 3101248; Perez-Farias, 2007 WL 2327073; Ameriwood, 2007 WL 5110313; Qantum, 473 F. Supp. 2d 1249; PML, 2006 WL 3759914; Plasse, 448 F. Supp. 2d 302; Tschirhart, 241 F.R.D. 462; Krumwiede, 2006 WL 1308629; Appraisal Mgmt., 2005 WL 3088561; Commc'ns Ctr., 2005 WL 3277983; Leon, 2004 WL 5571412; Kucala, 2003 WL 21230605; Telxon, 2004 WL 3192729; Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. 178.
195. Cabinetware Inc. v. Sullivan, No. 90-313 CLKK, 1991 WL 327959, (E.D. Cal. July 15, 1991); Wm. T. Thompson Co., 593 F. Supp. 1443; In re Krause, 367 B.R. 740; Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc. (In re Quintus Corp.), 353 B.R. 77 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), aff'd in part, Nos. 01-501, 01-502, 01-503, Adv. No. 04-53074, Civ. No. 06-769 SLR, 2007 WL 4233665 (D. Del. Nov. 29, 2007).
196. DaimlerChrysler, 2006 WL 2808158; Century ML-Cable, 43 F. Supp. 2d 176.
197. For the annual number of dismissals, see infra Appendix B.
198. Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004); Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2001); Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Se. Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody (Brody II), 657 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
199. KCH Servs., Inc. v. Vanaire, Inc., No. 05-777, 2009 WL 2216601 (W.D. Ky. July 22, 2009); Goodman v. Praxair Servs., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. Md. 2009); Arista Records, LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Plunk v. Village of Elwood, No. 07 C 88, 2009 WL 1444436 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2009).
200. Technical Sales Assocs. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., No. 07-11745, 2009 WL 728520 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2009); TeleQuest Int'l. Corp. v. Dedicated Bus. Sys. Inc., Civ. Action No. 06-5359 (PGS), 2009 WL 690996 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2009); Smith v. Slifer Smith & Frampton/Vail Assocs. Real Estate LLC, No. 06-cv-02206-JLK, 2009 WL 482603 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 2009); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roth, No. 05 C 3839, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009).
201. Kvitka v. Puffin Co., No. 1:06-CV-0858, 2009 WL 385582 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2009); Fox v. Riverdeep, Inc., No. 07-CV-13622, 2008 WL 5244297 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2008); Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co. v. Glasforms, Inc., No. C06-3359, 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008); Dowling v. United States, No. 2000-CV-0049, 2008 WL 4534174 (D.V.I. Oct. 6, 2008).
202. Arteria Prop. Pty Ltd. v. Universal Funding V.T.O., Inc., No. 05-4896 (PGS), 2008 WL 4513696 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2008); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 254 F.R.D. 559 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Babaev v. Grossman, No. CV03-5076, 2008 WL 4185703 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008); Keithley v. Home Store.com, Inc., No. 03-04447 SI (EDL), 2008 WL 3833384 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008); Ogin v. Ahmed, 563 F. Supp. 2d 539 (M.D. Pa. 2008).
203. Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 3:05-CV-0321-RAM, 2008 WL 2142219 (D. Nev. May 16, 2008); Wells v. Berger, Newmark & Fenchel, P.C., Civil Action No. 07 C 3061, 2008 WL 4365972 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2008); Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2008); Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008); Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Lowry Dev., LLC, Civil Action Nos. 106CV097, 1:06CV412, 2007 WL 4268776 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 30, 2007).
204. Paris Bus. Prods. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, Civil No. 07-0260 (JBS), 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007); Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., No. CV 06-4170 PSG (CTx), 2007 WL 5193736 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007), aff'd, 322 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 2009); Doe v. Norwalk Cmty. Coll., 248 F.R.D. 372 (D. Conn. 2007); World Courier v. Barone, No. C 06-3072 TEH, 2007 WL 1119196 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2007); Teague v. Target Corp., No. 3:06CV191, 2007 WL 1041191 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2007).
205. Optowave Co. v. Nikitin, No. 6:05-cv-1083-Orl-22DAB, 2006 WL 3231422 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006); In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Easton Sports, Inc. v. Warrior LaCrosse, Inc., No. 05-72031, 2006 WL 2811261 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2006); DaimlerChrysler Motors v. Bill Davis Racing, Inc., No. CIV.A. 03-72265, 2005 WL 3502172 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2005); Larson v. Bank One Corp., No. 00 C 2100, 2005 WL 4652509 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2005); E*Trade Sec. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, 230 F.R.D. 582 (D. Minn. 2005).
206. Hous. Rights Ctr. v. Sterling, No. CV 03-859 DSF, 2005 WL 3320739 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2005); Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (Zubulake V), 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Anderson v. Crossroads Capital Partners, LLC, No. 01-2000, 2004 WL 256512 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2004); Danis v. USN Commc'ns, Inc., No. 98 C 7482, 2000 WL 1694325 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2000).
207. Juniper Networks Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Inc., No. 2:05-CV-479, 2007 WL 2021776 (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2007); z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:06-CV-142, 2006 WL 2401099 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006), aff'd, 507 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Lyondell-Citgo Ref., LP v. Petroleos de Venez., S.A., No. 02 Civ. 0795(CBM), 2005 WL 1026461 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005); Network Computing Servs. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., 223 F.R.D. 392 (D.S.C. 2004).
208. Lewis v. Ryan, No. 04-CV-2468-JLS (NLS), 2009 WL 3486702 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009); Metrokane, Inc. v. Built NY, Inc., Nos. 06 Civ. 14447(LAK)(MHD), 07 Civ. 2084(LAK)(MHD), 2008 WL 4185865 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2008); Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 3: 06-CV-0271-B, 2008 WL 3261095 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2008).
209. In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd sub nom. Gordon Partners v. Blumenthal, No. 02 Civ. 7377(LAK), 2007 WL 1518632 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2007); 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tomar Elecs., Civ. No. 05-756(MJP/AJB), 2006 WL 2670038 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2006). 98. Stevenson, 354 F.3d 739; Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 259 F.3d 587.
210. Lewis, 2009 WL 3486702; Swofford, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274; Brody II, 657 F. Supp. 2d 1293; KCH Servs., 2009 WL 2216601; Goodman, 632 F. Supp. 2d 494; Usenet.com, 633 F. Supp. 2d 124; Plunk, 2009 WL 1444436; Technical Sales Assocs., 2009 WL 728520; TeleQuest Int'l, 2009 WL 690996; Smith, 2009 WL 482603; Am. Family Mut., 2009 WL 982788.
211. Fox, 2008 WL 5244297; Dong Ah Tire, 2008 WL 4786671; Dowling, 2008 WL 4534174; Arteria, 2008 WL 4513696; Nursing Home Pension Fund, 254 F.R.D. 559; Babaev, 2008 WL 4185703; Keithley, 2008 WL 3833384; Ogin, 563 F. Supp. 2d 539; Wells, 2008 WL 4365972; Connor, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1360; Nucor, 251 F.R.D. 191; Kounelis, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503; Great Am. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4268776.
212. Paris Bus. Prods., 2007 WL 3125184; Doe, 248 F.R.D. 372; Juniper Networks, 2007 WL 2021776; World Courier, 2007 WL 1119196; In re NTL, 244 F.R.D. 179; Optowave, 2006 WL 3231422; Napster, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060; Easton Sports, 2006 WL 2811261; 3M Innovative Props., 2006 WL 2670038; z4 Techs., 2006 WL 2401099; DaimlerChrysler Motors, 2005 WL 3502172; Larson, 2005 WL 4652509; Lyondell Citgo, 2005 WL 1026461; E*Trade, 230 F.R.D. 582; Hous. Rights Ctr., 2005 WL 3320739; Mosaid Techs., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332; Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. 422; Danis, 2000 WL 1694325.
213. Kvitka, 2009 WL 385582; Metrokane, 2008 WL 4185865; Super Future Equities, 2008 WL 3261095; Johnson, 2008 WL 2142219; Cyntegra, 2007 WL 5193736; Teague, 2007 WL 1041191; Network Computing Servs., 223 F.R.D. 392; Anderson, 2004 WL 256512.
214. Dowling, 2008 WL 4534174; Cyntegra, 2007 WL 5193736; Easton Sports, 2006 WL 2811261; DaimlerChrysler Motors, 2005 WL 3502172.
215. Lewis v. Ryan, 261 F.R.D. 513 (S.D. Cal. 2009); Fox, 2008 WL 5244297; Doe, 248 F.R.D. 372; Teague, 2007 WL 1041191; In re NTL, 244 F.R.D. 179; Napster, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060; Larson, 2005 WL 4652509; Hous. Rights Ctr., 2005 WL 3320739; Mosaid Techs., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332; Danis, 2000 WL 1694325.
216. Plunk, 2009 WL 1444436; Dong Ah Tire, 2008 WL 4786671; Keithley, 2008 WL 3833384.
217. Stevenson, 354 F.3d 739; Swofford, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274; Smith, 2009 WL 482603; Kvitka, 2009 WL 385582; Usenet.com, 633 F. Supp. 2d 124; Brody II, 657 F. Supp. 2d at 1293; KCH Servs., 2009 WL 2216601; Goodman, 632 F. Supp. 2d 494; Technical Sales Assocs., 2009 WL 728520; Arteria, 2008 WL 4513696.
218. Metrokane, 2008 WL 4185865; Kounelis, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503; Wells, 2008 WL 4365972; TeleQuest Int'l, 2009 WL 690996; Am. Family Mut., 2009 WL 982788; Babaev, 2008 WL 4185703; Nursing Home Pension Fund, 254 F.R.D. 559; Super Future Equities, 2008 WL 3261095; Ogin, 563 F. Supp. 2d 539; Johnson, 2008 WL 2142219; Connor, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1360; Nucor, 251 F.R.D. 191.
219. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4268776; Paris Bus. Prods., 2007 WL 3125184; Juniper Networks, 2007 WL 2021776; World Courier, 2007 WL 1119196; Optowave, 2006 WL 3231422; 3M Innovative Props., 2006 WL 2670038; z4 Techs., 2006 WL 2401099; E*Trade, 230 F.R.D. 582; Lyondell-Citgo, 2005 WL 1026461; Network Computing Servs., 223 F.R.D. 392; Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. 422; Anderson, 2004 WL 256512.
220. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2001).
221. Swofford, 671 F. Supp. 2d at 1280; Goodman, 632 F. Supp. 2d at 505; Kvitka, 2009 WL 385582; Arteria, 2008 WL 4513696, at *5; Wells, 2008 WL 4365972, at *6; Johnson, 2008 WL 2142219, at *6; Nucor, 251 F.R.D. at 194; Paris Bus. Prods., 2007 WL 3125184, at *2; World Courier, 2007 WL 1119196, at *1; Optowave, 2006 WL 3231422, at *7; Napster, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 1066; Easton Sports, 2006 WL 2811261, at *4; DaimlerChrysler Motors, 2005 WL 3502172, at *1; Mosaid Techs., 348 F. Supp. 2d at 335.
222. Stevenson, 354 F.3d at 745; Lewis, 261 F.R.D. at 518-19; Brody II, 657 F. Supp. 2d at 1302; Usenet.com, 633 F. Supp. 2d at 138; Plunk, 2009 WL 1444436, at *9; TeleQuest Int'l, 2009 WL 690996, at *2; Smith, 2009 WL 482603, at *3; Am. Family Mut., 2009 WL 982788, at *4 n.6.
223. Dowling v. United States, No. 2000-CV-0049, 2008 WL 4534174, at *1 (D.V.I. Oct. 6, 2008); Metrokane, 2008 WL 4185865, at *3; Nursing Home Pension Fund, 254 F.R.D. at 563; Keithley, 2008 WL 3833384, at *2; Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., No. CV 06-4170 PSG (CTx), 2007 WL 5193736, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007), aff'd, 322 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 2009).
224. Juniper Networks, 2007 WL 2021776, at *3; In re NTL, 244 F.R.D. at 191; 3M Innovative Props., 2006 WL 2670038, at *3; Larson, 2005 WL 4652509, at *8; E*Trade, 230 F.R.D. at 586; Hous. Rights Ctr., 2005 WL 3320739, at *1; Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. at 430.
225. Lyondell-Citgo, 2005 WL 1026461, at *3; Network Computing, 223 F.R.D. at 399-400; Danis v. USN Commc'ns, Inc., No. 98 C 7482, 2000 WL 1694325, at *30 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2000).
226. Stevenson, 354 F.3d at 750; Lewis, 261 F.R.D. at 518-19; Usenet.com, 633 F. Supp. 2d at 138; Smith, 2009 WL 482603, at *10; Metrokane, 2008 WL 4185865, at *3; Nursing Home Pension Fund, 254 F.R.D. at 563.
227. Keithley, 2008 WL 3833384, at *3; Cyntegra, 2007 WL 5193736, at *2; Juniper Networks, 2007 WL 2021776, at *2-3; In re NTL, 244 F.R.D. at 191; 3M Innovative, 2006 WL 2670038, at *11; Larson, 2005 WL 4652509, at *8; E*Trade, 230 F.R.D. at 586; Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. at 430 n.60.
228. Smith, 2009 WL 482603, at *10; Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 409, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); E*Trade, 230 F.R.D. at 586; Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. at 433.
229. For e-discovery sanction cases providing for specific monetary awards, see infra Appendix D.
230. Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376, 1379 (7th Cir. 1993).
231. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 270 F. App'x 372, 373 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (awarding $3,430,983.69 plus attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiff Grange on December 13, 2006, and $5,400,000.00 to plaintiff Allstate on February 14, 2007, in connection with a default judgment).
232. S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 82, 96-97 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) ($5,893,541.86); Grange Mut., 270 F. App'x at 373 ($8,830,983.69); Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05cv1958-B (BLM), 2008 WL 66932, at *20 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7) ($8,568,633.24), vacated in part, 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008).
233. Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., Civ. No. 01-4183, 2007 WL 1791553, at *5 (D.N.J. June 19, 2007) ($6,723,883.22); Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 4:97CV01609 ERW, 2001 WL 170410, at *22 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 2) ($8,211,287.50), amended by No. 4:97CV1609ERW, 2001 WL 34127923 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2001).
234. Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 260 F.R.D. 682, 700 (N.D. Ga. 2009) ($1,022,700); z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:06-CV-142, 2006 WL 2401099, at *25 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006) ($2.3 million); United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 21, 26 (D.D.C. 2004) ($2,755,027.48); Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Air Grp. (In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.), Bankr. No. 03-00817, Adv. No. 06-90026, 2008 WL 185649 (Bankr. D. Haw. Jan. 22, 2008) ($3,929,532.21).
235. Gutman v. Klein, No. 03 Civ. 1570BMC, 2009 WL 3296072, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2009) ($287,730.16); Keithley v. Home Store.com, Inc., No. C-03-04447 SI (EDL), 2008 WL 3833384, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008) ($257,528.50); CSI Inv. Partners II, L.P. v. Cendant Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 384, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ($720,000), aff'd, 328 F. App'x 56 (2d Cir. 2009).
236. In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins. Coverage Cases, 243 F.R.D. 114, 132 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ($500,000); Kamatani v. BenQ Corp., Civil Action No. Civ.A. 2:03-CV-437, 2005 WL 2455825, at *15 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2005) ($500,000); Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332, 334 (D.N.J. 2004) ($566,839.97).
237. For cases with monetary awards exceeding $100,000, see infra Appendix D.
238. Thomas Y. Allman, Conducting E-discovery After the Amendments: The Second Wave, 10 SEDONA CONF. J. 215, 218 (2009).
239. It is important to note that cases today involve discovery of both ESI and paper documents and that fourteen of the thirty cases involving counsel misconduct related to paper documents as well as ESI.
240. Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00299-JOF-LTW, 2009 WL 4798117, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2009); Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 669 F. Supp. 2d 279, 286-87 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1288-89 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Richard Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. 284, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
241. Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co. (Bray & Gillespie II), 259 F.R.D. 591, 617 (M.D. Fla.), rejected in part by No. 6:07-cv-0222-Orl-35KRS, 2009 WL 5606058 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2009), and adopted in part by No. 6:07-cv-0222-Orl-35KRS, 2010 WL 55595 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2010); 1100 W., LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-cv-1670-LJM-JMS, 2009 WL 1605118, at *35 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009).
242. Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Operations, Inc., No. CIV-S-07-0945 GEB GGH, 2008 WL 5101451, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008); R & R Sails Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 251 F.R.D. 520, 528 (S.D. Cal. 2008); Sterle v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., No. 3:06 CV 01584(DJS), 2008 WL 961216, at *14 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2008); Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05cv1958-B (BLM), 2008 WL 66932, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7), vacated in part, 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008).
243. Auto. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., No. 06-15100, 2007 WL 3333016, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2007); Bd. of Regents v. BASF Corp., No. 4:04CV3356, 2007 WL 3342423, at *7 (D. Neb. Nov. 5, 2007); Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., No. 07-C-22-C, 2007 WL 4939048, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007); In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins., 243 F.R.D. at 132; NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, No. 04 Civ. 9240(RCC), 2007 WL 258181, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007); Phx. Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., No. 05 Civ. 4837(HB), 2006 WL 1409413, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006).
244. Rousseau v. Echosphere Corp., No. Civ. A. 03-1230, 2005 WL 2176839, at *11 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2005); Brick v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 04-CV-0129E(F), 2004 WL 1811430, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2004); Metro. Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int'l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178, 231 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), adhered to on reconsideration by No. 00 Civ. 3613(LAP), 2004 WL 1943099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2004).
245. Sheppard v. River Valley Fitness One, L.P., 203 F.R.D. 56, 62 (D.N.H. 2001), adopted in part and rejected in part by No. Civ. 00-111-M, 2004 WL 102493 (D.N.H. Jan. 22, 2004), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 428 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005).
246. Poole ex rel. Elliott v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494, 511 (D. Md. 2000); Mktg. Specialists, Inc. v. Bruni, 129 F.R.D. 35, 55 (W.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 923 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1990); Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 558 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Oscher v. Solomon Tropp Law Grp. (In re Atl. Int'l Mortg. Co.), 352 B.R. 503, 510-11 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006); Cohen Steel Supply, Inc. v. Fagnant (In re Fagnant), Nos. 03-10496-JMD, 03-1348-JMD, 2004 WL 2944126, at *4 (Bankr. D.N.H. Dec. 13, 2004).
247. Fharmacy, 248 F.R.D. at 718-19; Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., Civil Action No. CCB-08-273, 2009 WL 2252151, at *3-4 (D. Md. July 28, 2009).
248. Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. Infocon, Inc., 479 F. Supp. 2d 702, 718-19 (N.D. Ohio 2006); Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 81, 113-15 (D.N.J. 2006).
249. Tantivy Commc'ns, Inc. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., No. Civ.A.2:04CV79 (TJW), 2005 WL 2860976, at *3-4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2005).
250. Grider, 580 F.3d at 140, 144; Ibarra, 338 F. App'x at 470; Pinstripe, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc., No. 07-CV-620-GKF-PJC, 2009 WL 2252131, at *2-3 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2009); In re Rosenthal, Civil Action No. H-04-186, 2008 WL 983702, at *12 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008); Finley v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 249 F.R.D. 329, 332 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Quinby, 2005 WL 3453908, at *9-10; Cuomo, 1998 WL 395320, at *2-3.
251. See Grider, 580 F.3d at 140, 144 (vacating sanctions against counsel under Rules 26 and 37 because the trial court did not undertake a substantial justification analysis, and under 28 USC § 1927 for lack of factual specificity as to the conduct of each defendant).
252. Ibarra, 338 F. App'x at 470-71 (vacating sanctions against in-house counsel for a county attorney general's office because there was no finding that counsel acted in bad faith, provided a false certification, or committed fraud).
253. Several circuit courts have held that Rule 37(c) does not authorize counsel sanctions. See Grider, 580 F.3d at 141 ("We find the reasoning of the Second and Seventh Circuits persuasive and hold that Rule 37(c)(1) does not permit sanctions against counsel.").
254. Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 470 (7th Cir. 2003); Apex Oil Co. v. Belcher Co., 855 F.2d 1009, 1014 (2d Cir. 1988). But see Travel Sentry, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 284; Richard Green, 262 F.R.D. at 288; Bray & Gillespie II, 259 F.R.D. at 608; Red Spot, 2009 WL 1605118, at *26-27; Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 260 F.R.D. 682, 699 (N.D. Ga. 2009).
255. Ajaxo, 2008 WL 5101451, at *2; Fharmacy Records v. Nassar (Fharmacy Records I), 248 F.R.D. 507, 529 (E.D. Mich. 2008), aff'd, 379 F. App'x 522 (6th Cir. 2010); R & R Sails, 251 F.R.D. at 526; Sterle, 2008 WL 961216, at *7; Qualcomm, 2008 WL 66932, at *13 n.9.
256. Digene, 2007 WL 4939048, at *1; In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins., 243 F.R.D. at 131-32; Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 81, 110 (D.N.J. 2006); NSB, 2007 WL 258181, at *2; Phx. Four, 2006 WL 1409413, at *7; Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. at 224; Poole, 192 F.R.D. at 506; Mktg. Specialists, 129 F.R.D. at 53; Atl. Int'l, 352 B.R. at 510; Fagnant, 2004 WL 2944126, at *1.
257. Travel Sentry, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 284; Swofford, 671 F. Supp. 2d at 1287; Richard Green, 262 F.R.D. at 288; Red Spot, 2009 WL 1605118, at *27-28; Fharmacy Records I, 248 F.R.D. at 529; Qualcomm, 2008 WL 66932, at *13 n.9; Auto. Inspection Servs., 2007 WL 3333016, at *3; Wachtel, 239 F.R.D. at 100; Brick, 2004 WL 1811430, at *3; Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. at 231; Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors, 115 F.R.D. at 554.
258. Auto. Inspection Servs., 2007 WL 3333016, at *3; Brick, 2004 WL 1811430, at *3.
259. In only four of thirty cases were outside counsel sanctioned without the client also being sanctioned.
260. See Auto. Inspection Servs., 2007 WL 3333016, at *7 ("[T]he Court will not attribute [counsel's] conduct to his client and deprive it a chance to present its case on the merits.").
261. Rousseau v. Echosphere Corp., No. Civ.A.03-1230, 2005 WL 2176839, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2005) (sanctioning counsel alone because the client's case had already been dismissed).
262. Brick, 2004 WL 1811430, at *3 n.29 (sanctioning counsel alone because his "disregard of discovery obligations... could not have been performed on behalf of his client").
263. Fagnant, 2004 WL 2944126, at *2, *4 (sanctioning counsel alone for carelessly or negligently delaying document delivery, despite the client's good faith efforts).
264. Swofford, 671 F. Supp. 2d at 1288-89; Qualcomm, 2008 WL 66932, at *1; Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors, 115 F.R.D. at 558.
265. see also Bray & Gillespie II, 259 F.R.D. at 588, 590 (sanctioning the client and outside counsel, and reminding in-house counsel not to rely blindly on outside counsel).
266. Poole, 192 F.R.D. at 611 (directing sanctions at the client and outside counsel, but also holding that sanctions are appropriate against in-house counsel).
267. See Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00299-JOF-LTW, 2009 WL 4798117, at *2-3 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2009) (sanctioning counsel for the failure to comply with a court order to narrow overly broad requests that sought the complete contents of employee laptops).
268. Ajaxo, 2008 WL 5101451, at *1-2 (sanctioning counsel for noncompliance with a court order requiring production of documents in a searchable format).
269. R & R Sails, 251 F.R.D. at 526 (sanctioning counsel for producing only eleven of the seventeen pages in its possession prior to the relevant deposition).
270. Fagnant, 2004 WL 2944126, at *1-2 (sanctioning counsel for not producing computer database printouts in its possession until the eve of trial).
271. Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
272. See R & R Sails, 251 F.R.D. at 526 (sanctioning counsel for not producing the entire electronic claim log until the next month).
273. Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., No. 07-C-22-C, 2007 WL 4939048, at *1-2 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007) (sanctioning counsel for delaying notebook production for months because counsel mistakenly believed the notebooks had already been sent electronically).
274. Sheppard v. River Valley Fitness One, L.P., 203 F.R.D. 56, 60 (D.N.H. 2001) (sanctioning counsel for the failure to timely comply with a discovery order), adopted in part and rejected in part by No. Civ. 00-111-M, 2004 WL 102493 (D.N.H. Jan. 22, 2004), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 428 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005).
275. Fagnant, 2004 WL 2944126, at *1-2 (sanctioning counsel for not producing a computerized general ledger until the eve of trial, nearly eight months after his client gave it to him).
276. Pension Comm., 685 F. Supp. 2d at 464.
277. See Richard Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. 284, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that the failure to institute a litigation hold is grossly negligent and sanctioning the client in part for this failure).
278. Bd. of Regents v. BASF Corp., No. 4:04CV3356, 2007 WL 3342423, at *5 (D. Neb. Nov. 5, 2007) (sanctioning counsel for not directing the client to preserve potentially relevant ESI during computer system migration and for not specifically directing the client to search for electronic documents).
279. Mktg. Specialists, Inc. v. Bruni, 129 F.R.D. 35, 54 (W.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 923 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1990) (sanctioning counsel for "wilfully fail[ing] to attend to the work necessary to ascertain the existence of other records of the parties' relationship and to make a proper disclosure").
280. Richard Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
281. See Phx. Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., No. 05 Civ. 4837(HB), 2006 WL 1409413, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006) (finding counsel grossly negligent for "simply accept[ing]" the client's representations about its lack of computers to search).
282. Poole ex rel. Elliott v. Textron, 192 F.R.D. 494, 502 (D. Md. 2000) (sanctioning counsel for producing only one page in response to initial requests, 470 pages after receiving a motion to compel, but over 2,900 pages and 20 videotapes after a motion for sanctions was filed).
283. Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 556 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (sanctioning in-house counsel for failing to distribute discovery requests to all the employees and agents who potentially possessed responsive information or for failing to account for its collection and subsequent production).
284. See In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins. Coverage Cases, 243 F.R.D. 114, 130 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (finding counsel "negligen[t] or worse" for the failure to produce a highly relevant document for nearly two years despite being alerted to its possible existence by opposing counsel).
285. See Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-C0299-JOF-LTW, 2009 WL 4798117, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2009) (affirming sanctions against counsel for its failure to comply with a court order to limit discovery).
286. Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Operations, Inc., No. CIV-S-07-0945 GEB GGH, 2008 WL 5101451, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008) (sanctioning counsel for unjustified disregard of a court order in its failure to produce documents in the court-ordered searchable format).
287. Sterle v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., No. 3:06 CV 01584(DJS), 2008 WL 961216, at *13 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2008) (sanctioning counsel for improper obstruction during a court-ordered forensic inspection).
288. Wachtel v. Health Net, 239 F.R.D. 81, 101 (D.N.J. 2006) (sanctioning counsel for improper conduct and flagrant disregard of court orders in its failure to comply with a court order to supplement production).
289. NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, No. 04 Civ. 9240(RCC), 2007 WL 258181, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007) (sanctioning counsel for its disregard of and failure to comply with three court orders compelling discovery).
290. Oscher v. Solomon Tropp Law Grp. (In re Atl. Int'l Mortg. Co.), 352 B.R. 503, 509 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006) (sanctioning counsel for ignoring discovery requests and filing meritless appeals of nonappealable discovery orders).
291. See Tantivy Commc'ns, Inc. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., No. Civ.A.2:04CV79 (TJW), 2005 WL 2860976, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2005) (finding sanctionable conduct when counsel allowed relevant ESI to be destroyed through normal destruction practices and denied the existence of, and failed to produce until "the eleventh hour," highly relevant documents despite specific references to such documents by opposing counsel).
292. see also Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co. (Bray & Gillespie I), 259 F.R.D. 568, 587 (M.D. Fla.) ("Such deliberate or reckless disregard of the truth can never provide substantial justification under Rule 37."), aff'd in part, No. 6:07-cv-0222, 2009 WL 5606058 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2009).
293. Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., No. CCB-08-273, 2009 WL 2252151, at *4 (D. Md. July 28, 2009) (ordering a motion to compel, a sanctions consideration hearing, and an award of costs for apparent discovery violations and deficiencies).
294. See Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1285 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (sanctioning counsel for failure to issue a litigation hold despite receiving two notices requesting preservation); 1100 W., LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-cv-1670-LJM-JMS, 2009 WL 1605118, at *28-35 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009) (sanctioning counsel for the failure to supervise the client's search, failure to produce responsive documents, and misrepresentations about client information).
295. Fharmacy Records v. Nassar (Fharmacy Records II), 572 F. Supp. 2d 869, 873 (E.D. Mich. 2008) ("Although some of the events in this litigation might be excused as resulting from mere negligence when viewed in isolation, considering them in the aggregate invariably leads to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and their attorney have conducted a campaign of fraud.").
296. Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05cv1958-B (BLM), 2008 WL 66932, at *12-20 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7) (sanctioning counsel for the failure to instruct the client on searches, failure to produce, and misrepresentations about the existence of 46,000 potentially responsive emails), vacated in part, 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008).
297. Brick v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 04-CV-0129E(F), 2004 WL 1811430, at *1-4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2004) (sanctioning counsel for the failure to issue a litigation hold, failure to supervise the search by the client's employee, misrepresentations as to production completion, failure to notify the court of document destruction, improperly withholding documents for privilege, and failure to produce client files in possession of counsel).
298. Metro. Opera Ass'n, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int'l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178, 184-214 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (sanctioning counsel for the failure to issue a litigation hold, failure to supervise a search for responsive documents, misrepresentations as to production completion, and unilateral failure to produce a category of responsive documents), adhered to on reconsideration by No. 00 Civ. 3613(LAP), 2004 WL 1943099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2004).
299. Auto. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., No. 06-15100, 2007 WL 3333016, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2007) (finding that counsel's "secret access to these computers may have irrevocably tainted key pieces of evidence").
300. Exact Software N. Am., Inc., v. Infocon, Inc., 479 F. Supp. 2d 702, 719 (N.D. Ohio 2006) ("The information at issue is not ancillary to its case; most of it goes to the heart....").
301. see also Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 669 F. Supp. 2d 279, 285 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (listing lower court orders that focus on discovery compliance); Rousseau v. Echosphere Corp., No. Civ.A. 03-1230, 2005 WL 2176839, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2005) (holding that the belated production of material evidence ultimately led to the dismissal of the case).
302. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (Zubulake V), 229 F.R.D. 422, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("[C]ounsel is responsible for coordinating her client's discovery efforts... to properly oversee... its duty to locate relevant information and its duty to preserve and timely produce that information.").
303. see also id. at 432 ("A party's discovery obligations do not end with the implementation of a 'litigation hold'-to the contrary, that's only the beginning.
304. Counsel must oversee compliance with the litigation hold, monitoring the party's efforts to retain and produce the relevant documents. Proper communication between a party and her lawyer will ensure (1) that all relevant information (or at least all sources of relevant information) is discovered, (2) that relevant information is retained on a continuing basis; and (3) that relevant non-privileged material is produced to the opposing party.").
305. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g).
306. Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. at 222.
307. See Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-C0299-JOF-LTW, 2009 WL 4798117, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2009) (sanctioning counsel for failure to comply with a court order to limit discovery).
308. Travel Sentry, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 286-87 (sanctioning counsel for its "conscious concealment of the facts and... documents").
309. Ajaxo Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Operations, Inc., No. CIV-S-07-0945 GEB GGH, 2008 WL 5101451, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008) (sanctioning counsel for its unjustified disregard of a court order); Sterle v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., No. 3:06 CV 01584(DJS), 2008 WL 961216, at *13 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2008) (sanctioning counsel for its unreasonable conduct throughout discovery).
310. Auto. Inspection Servs., 2007 WL 3333016, at *8 (sanctioning counsel for violating Rule 45 during discovery); Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., No. 07-CC-2-C, 2007 WL 4939048, at *1-2 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007) (sanctioning counsel for a discovery misunderstanding that resulted in a delay).
311. Rousseau, 2005 WL 2176839, at *9 (sanctioning counsel for delaying discovery after finding a document that undermined his client's case).
312. Sheppard v. River Valley Fitness One, L.P., 203 F.R.D. 56, 62 (D.N.H. 2001) (sanctioning counsel for obstructing discovery, misleading the other party, and concealing his conduct), adopted in part and rejected in part by No. Civ. 00-111-M, 2004 WL 102493 (D.N.H. Jan. 22, 2004), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 428 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005).
313. Cohen Steel Supply, Inc. v. Fagnant (In re Fagnant), Nos. 03-10496-JMD, 03-1348-JMD, 2004 WL 2944126, at *2 (Bankr. D.N.H. Dec. 13, 2004) (sanctioning counsel for the failure to produce a document until the eve of trial).
314. Metro. Opera, 212 F.R.D. at 223-24; Poole ex rel. Elliott v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494, 503 (D. Md. 2000); Nat'l Mktg. Specialists, Inc. v. Bruni, 129 F.R.D. 35, 54 (W.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 923 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1990); Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 556 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
315. Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1281 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Richard Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. 284, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
316. Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co. (Bray & Gillespie II), 259 F.R.D. 591, 611 (M.D. Fla.), rejected in part by No. 6:07-cv-0222-Orl-35KRS, 2009 WL 5606058 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2009), and adopted in part by No. 6:07-cv-0222-Orl-35KRS, 2010 WL 55595 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2010).
317. Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., No. CCB-08-273, 2009 WL 2252151, at *3 (D. Md. July 28, 2009); 1100 W., LLC v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., No. 1:05-cv-1670-LJM-JMS, 2009 WL 1605118, at *35 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2009).
318. Fharmacy Records v. Nassar (Fharmacy Records II), 572 F. Supp. 2d 869, 881 (E.D. Mich. 2008); R & R Sails Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 251 F.R.D. 520, 525 (S.D. Cal. 2008); Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05cv1958-B (BLM), 2008 WL 66932, at *12-20 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7), vacated in part, 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008); Bd. of Regents v. BASF Corp., No. 4:04CV3356, 2007 WL 3342423, at *5 (D. Neb. Nov. 5, 2007); Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 81, 92-97 (D.N.J. 2006).
319. In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins. Coverage Cases, 243 F.R.D. 114, 130 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); NSB U.S. Sales, Inc. v. Brill, No. 04 Civ. 9240(RCC), 2007 WL 258181, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2007); Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. Infocon Inc., 479 F. Supp. 2d 702, 703 (N.D. Ohio 2006); Phx. Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., No. 05 Civ. 4837(HB), 2006 WL 1409413, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006).
320. Tantivy Commc'ns, Inc. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., No. Civ.A.2:04CV79 (TJW), 2005 WL 2860976, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2005); Brick v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 04-CV-0129E(F), 2004 WL 1811430, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2004); Oscher v. Solomon Tropp Law Grp. (In re Atl. Int'l Mortg. Co.), 352 B.R. 503, 507-08 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006).
321. See Red Spot, 2009 WL 1605118, at *34 (ordering sanctions against counsel and noting that "[b]eing a zealous lawyer does not mean zealously believing your client in light of evidence to the contrary").
322. Phx. Four, 2006 WL 1409413, at *6 (ordering sanctions against counsel because it "simply accepted [the client's] representation" rather than being "diligent... as it should have" in ensuring the completeness of the client's discovery efforts).
323. Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co. (Bray & Gillespie III), No. 6:07-cv-0222-Orl-35KRS, 2009 WL 5606058, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2009) (holding that counsel's reliance on the misrepresentation of the client as to the completeness of production "is not the sort of conduct for which sanctions against counsel may issue").
324. Pinstripe Inc. v. Manpower, Inc., No. 07-CV-620-GKF-PJC, 2009 WL 2252131, at *2-3 (declining to grant sanctions for counsel who made reasonable inquiry into the client's completeness of production and relied upon false client representation concerning the implementation of a litigation hold).
325. Finley v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 249 F.R.D. 329, 332 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (refusing to grant sanctions under Rule 26(g) despite counsel's negligent reliance on the client's defective search because counsel did not act in bad faith).
326. Thomas Y. Allman, Achieving an Appropriate Balance: The Use of Counsel Sanctions in Connection with the Resolution of E-Discovery Misconduct, 15 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 9, ¶ 22 (2009), http://jolt.richmond.edu/v15i3/article9.pdf ("Some courts, unfortunately, treat outside counsel as virtual guarantors of discovery diligence and see very little room for reliance on client resources.").
327. See In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins., 243 F.R.D. at 131 (awarding joint and several sanction of $500,000 for the failure to preserve and produce the requested documents).
328. Sheppard, 203 F.R.D. at 60 (awarding $500 for the failure to timely produce floppy discs). 149. Bray & Gillespie II, 259 F.R.D. at 617.
329. Fharmacy Records II, 572 F. Supp. 2d at 881; R & R Sails, 251 F.R.D. at 528; Digene, 2007 WL 4939048, at *3; In re Sept. 11th Liab. Ins., 243 F.R.D. at 133; Poole, 192 F.R.D. at 510-11; Mktg. Specialists, 129 F.R.D. at 55.
330. See Qualcomm, 2008 WL 66932, at *18-19 (directing counsel to participate in the development of a discovery protocol); Auto. Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., No. 06-15100, 2007 WL 3333016, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2007) (directing counsel to submit an affidavit to the court certifying that he had read Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
331. Bd. of Regents, 2007 WL 3342423, at *7 (directing counsel to submit an affidavit to the court regarding counsel's discovery compliance efforts); Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors, 115 F.R.D. at 559 (directing counsel to develop and submit a discovery plan to the court).
332. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(e). When adopted, the safe harbor provision was contained in Rule 37(f). The 2007 edition of the Federal Rules moved the safe harbor provision from Rule 37(f) to Rule 37(e) with no changes to the rule's text. Compare id., with FED. R. CIV. P. 37(f) (2006).
333. ADVISORY COMM. ON THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, REPORT OF THE CIVIL RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 83 (May 27, 2005), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/Reports/CV5-2005.pdf.
334. The Committee noted that the proposed new rule would afford "limited protection against sanctions" for the loss of information as a result of the routine operation of an electronic information system.
335. The Committee recognized (1) that automated features in many electronic systems "automatically create, discard, or update information without specific direction from, or awareness of" system users; (2) that "such automatic features are essential to the operation of electronic information systems"; and (3) that "suspending or interrupting these features can be prohibitively expensive and burdensome.".
336. The Committee noted that electronic information systems present issues for businesses that are absent from traditional, paper-based systems and that efforts to suspend automatic electronic processes risk disrupting business operations: "[i]t is unrealistic to expect parties to stop such routine operation of their computer systems as soon as they anticipate litigation.".
337. See id. at 83-90 (discussing the proposed rule and the public commentary surrounding it).
338. The first draft of the proposed rule published by the Advisory Committee "barred sanctions only if the party who lost electronically stored information took reasonable steps to preserve the information after it knew or should have known the information was discoverable in the action.".
339. The Advisory Committee noted that this proposed version adopted a negligence standard, and the Committee also invited comment on whether the rule should instead set forth a standard of conduct which would bar sanctions unless the party "recklessly or intentionally failed to preserve the information".
340. Mohrmeyer v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., No. 09-69-WOB, 2009 WL 4166996, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2009) (refusing to award sanctions against the defendant for discarding hardcopy maintenance logs "as a result of its routine, good-faith records management practices long before [it] received any notice of the likelihood of litigation" and finding Rule 37(e) inapplicable because the documents were not ESI, but citing the Rule "[b]y analogy").
341. United Med. Supply Co. v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 257, 270 n.24 (2007) (addressing the spoliation of paper government-contract files and citing Rule 37 in a footnote to illustrate the availability of sanctions absent proof of bad faith).
342. United States v. O'Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d 14, 22 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Rule 37(e) by analogy in a criminal case).
343. Sue v. Milyard, No. 07-cv-07711-REB-MJW, 2009 WL 2424435, at *2 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009) (denying sanctions for the destruction of evidence when video footage stored on the defendant's hard drive was automatically recorded over within five to seven days due to the normal operating process of the camera's computer system, which erased the footage before the plaintiff made a request to preserve it).
344. Se. Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody (Brody I), No. 8:08-CV-1151-T-30EAJ, 2009 WL 2242395, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2009) (holding that no spoliation sanction was warranted because the overwriting of backup tapes involved no bad faith and was part of the company's routine document-management policy).
345. Gippetti v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. CO7-00812 RMW (HRL), 2008 WL 3264483, at *1, *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2008) (rejecting a request for spoliation sanctions against a company that discarded tachograph records showing a vehicle's speed and the length of time it was moving or stationary, because the company's practice was to preserve the records for only thirty-seven days due to the large volume of data and the company had no notice that the specific records sought should have been preserved).
346. Escobar v. City of Houston, No. 04-1945, 2007 WL 2900581, at *18-19 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2007) (rejecting an adverse-inference instruction when the defendant destroyed documents deemed not responsive to the document requests and the party seeking sanctions failed to show the relevance of the records sought or that destruction was in bad faith).
347. Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Bunnell, No. CV 06-1093FMCJCX, 2007 WL 2080419, at *14 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2007) (holding that a party's failure to retain website server log data, stored temporarily in RAM, was not sanctionable due to the party's "good faith belief that preservation of data temporarily stored only in RAM was not legally required").
348. In re Kessler, No. 05 CV 6056(SJF)(AKT), 2009 WL 2603104, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009) (appearing to apply Rule 37(e) sub silentio to reject an award of attorneys' fees based on the party's failure to preserve video footage which "self-destructed" approximately twentyseven hours after it was recorded "in accordance with the routine operation of the... surveillance system").
349. Riverside Heathcare, Inc. v. Sysco Food Servs. of San Antonio, LP (In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc.), 393 B.R. 422, 429 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008) (refusing to award sanctions when the absence of the requested email did not unfairly prejudice the opposing party and when the email was deleted routinely before the suit).
350. Peskoff v. Faber, 244 F.R.D. 54, 60-61 (D.D.C. 2007) (noting that sanctions are possible for the failure to disable an email auto-deletion function during the period following notice of pending litigation, but are not appropriate for failure to do so prior to notice of pending litigation).
351. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329, 2007 WL 1498973, at *6 (N.D. Okla. May 17, 2007) (admonishing the parties, in a case with voluminous ESI, to "be very cautious in relying upon any 'safe harbor' doctrine as described in new Rule 37(f)").
352. U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., No. 8:06-CV-2041-T-17EAJ, 2007 WL 4181900, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2007) (construing Rule 37(f) as "govern[ing] a parties' [sic] failure to cooperate during discovery" and deferring consideration of sanctions pending the responding party's submission of an affidavit of a corporate representative explaining why certain emails were not available and detailing the efforts it made to obtain them).
353. KCH Servs. Inc. v. Vanaire, No. 05-777-C, 2009 WL 2216601, at *1 (W.D. Ky. July 22, 2009) (granting an adverse-inference jury instruction when the defendant ordered employees to delete certain software and evinced an "unwillingness to place a meaningful litigation hold on relevant electronic information after being placed on notice").
354. Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., No. 1:07CV258, 2009 WL 2168717, at *4, *7 (E.D. Tenn. July 16, 2009) (awarding attorneys' fees to the plaintiff as a sanction after the defendant hospital reimaged the chief of medical staff's hard drive immediately after the chief's retirement and long after the hospital was on notice that electronic information on the hard drive could be relevant to the lawsuit).
355. Ripley v. District of Columbia, No. 06-1705, slip op. at 9 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009) (holding that Rule 37(e) afforded no protection to a defendant that destroyed emails and denied the existence of a back-up tape after the plaintiff requested the emails and awarding attorneys' fees as a sanction because "[d]efendants... did not operate their e-mail system in a routine, good-faith manner").
356. Phillip M. Adams & Assocs. v. Dell, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 1191-92 (D. Utah 2009) (holding that the safe harbor was not available because the defendant discarded computer source code and failed to show reasonableness or good faith).
357. Technical Sales Assocs. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., No. 07-11745 2009 WL 728520, at *7-8 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2009) (holding that the safe harbor did not apply to a finding of intentional conduct when emails were deleted during the discovery period and "just days" before the completion of searches for responsive documents).
358. Arista Records, LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 409, 431 n.31 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (ruling that an online bulletin board had an obligation to preserve usage data, digital music files, and other material that was specifically requested, and noting that the Rule 37(e) safe harbor was not cited by the parties in briefing and "does not apply under the circumstances of this case").
359. Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, No. CCB-06-3041, 2008 WL 4533902, at *9 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008) (concluding that while the moving party submitted no evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith, the defendant "appear[ed]" grossly negligent in failing to preserve documents after the duty to preserve attached).
360. Keithley v. Home Store.com, Inc., No. C-03-04447 SI (EDL), 2008 WL 3833384, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008) ("Defendants did not satisfy their duty to preserve even after this lawsuit was filed and recklessly allowed the destruction of some relevant [data] as late as 2004.").
361. MeccaTech Inc., v. Kiser, No. 8:05CV570, 2008 WL 6010937 at *9 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2008) (awarding a sanction based on an express finding that ESI was intentionally destroyed or withheld and was not lost through the good-faith operation of an electronic information system).
362. Doe v. Norwalk Cmty. Coll., 248 F.R.D. 372, 378 (D. Conn. 2007) (holding that to take advantage of the good faith exception of the safe harbor rule "a party needs to act affirmatively to prevent the system from destroying or altering information, even if such destruction would occur in the regular course of business").
363. Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614, 636-37 (D. Colo. 2007) (ruling that a party's failure to implement and monitor an adequate records preservation program, including the wiping of hard drives, and the counsel's failure to properly monitor the discovery process, did not substantially prejudice the moving party but nevertheless did interfere with the judicial process, warranting a monetary sanction of $5,000).
364. United States v. Krause (In re Krause), 367 B.R. 740, 767, 770-72 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2007) (ordering sanctions against a debtor in a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding because the debtor "willfully and intentionally destroyed electronically stored evidence"), aff'd, Nos. 08-1132, 08-1136, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009).
365. Technical Sales Assocs., 2009 WL 728520, at *7-8; MeccaTech, 2008 WL 6010937, at *9; In re Krause, 367 B.R. at 767, 770.
366. Pandora Jewelry, 2008 WL 4533902, at *9.
367. Keithley, 2008 WL 3833384, at *6.
368. Ripley, slip op. at 9; Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., 621 F. Supp. 2d at 1191-92.
369. Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191, 196 n.3 (D.S.C. 2008) (holding that Rule 37(e) was inapplicable to the consideration of sanctions for a party's intentional spoliation when the sanctions were issued pursuant to the court's inherent authority, not the Federal Rules).
370. see also Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 3:05-CV-0321-RAM, 2008 WL 2142219, at *3 n.1 (D. Nev. May 16, 2008) (awarding sanctions consisting of an adverse-inference instruction in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case when the plaintiff erased data from hard drives after the data were requested by the defendant and holding that the Rule 37(e) safe harbor was "inapplicable under these facts because the conduct giving rise to this action was not in violation of any discovery order governed by Rule 37").
371. In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., 258 F.R.D. 280, 282 n.5 (D. Del. 2008) (refusing to apply the Rule 37(f) safe harbor even though it was cited by the defendants in a letter to the court describing its email system's auto-delete function).
372. Orrell v. Motorcarparts of Am., Inc., No. 3:06CV418-R, 2007 WL 4287750, at *7 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2007) (ordering, in an employment case, that the plaintiff, who had "wiped" her laptop and was found to have served deficient discovery responses, serve complete responses and provide her home computer to defendants for forensic examination, and citing Rule 37(e), even though sanctions were neither sought nor awarded).
373. Disability Rights Council v. Wash. Metro. Transit Auth., 242 F.R.D. 139, 146 (D.D.C. 2007) (holding that Rule 37(e) was inapplicable because no sanctions were sought and because of the "indefensible" failure to disable "auto-delete" during the course of litigation).