Hubbard v. Crow is a recent federal case highlighting complex issues at the intersection of technology and the law, particularly regarding the preservation and production of electronic evidence under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case centered on a dispute over plaintiffs’ alleged failure to produce an unedited podcast recording, which
Judges are still figuring out the best way to preempt misuse of generative AI (GenAI) in their courts as use of AI technology becomes more commonplace in litigation.
Since Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued the first standing order on the use of AI in preparing
Plaintiff–Appellant Richard Hoffer sued the city of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, and various individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officers used excessive force when arresting him. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in the officers’ favor. Hoffer appealed the judgment, arguing the district court erred in denying his request
Facts
In Miramontes v. Peraton Inc., an employment discrimination case, plaintiff moved for sanctions against defendant for its failure to preserve text messages and a skills assessment related to plaintiff’s performance. Plaintiff – a senior supply chain business partner manager – was a 27-year employee of Prospecta when the company was acquired by defendant
Factual Background
Plaintiffs are former employees of Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Federal Reserve) whose employment was terminated when they refused to comply with Defendant’s requirement that its employees be vaccinated against Covid-19. Dkt. No. 24. Plaintiffs alleged that their terminations violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; the Free Exercise Clause of the First
In Seattle Tunnel Partners v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC, __ P.3d __ (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2023), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division 1, discusses the evolution of Washington case law on spoliation of evidence and details the circumstances justifying the imposition of spoliation sanctions in the jurisdiction. Interestingly, the parameters
The Court’s statutory and inherent authority to impose sanctions for eDiscovery spoliation remains important for the administration of justice and judicial case management. However, sanctions a court imposes to remediate discovery misconduct when a party fails to preserve potentially relevant information and that failure is shown to have been an intentional act to deprive the
In an action alleging breach of a commercial equipment lease agreement (Interpool, Inc., v JJS Transportation & Distribution Co., Inc.), the District Court for the Eastern District of New York was called upon to address Defendant’s ongoing discovery failures. Specifically, Defendant – for more than three months – failed to produce documents responsive
For anyone with a few hours to spare, I highly recommend reading the various decisions authored by District Court Judge Iain Johnston of the Northern District of Illinois relating to discovery failures in the DR Distributors case. DR Distributors, LLC v. Century 21 Smoking, Inc., 513 F. Supp.3d 839 (ND Ill., 2021). Indeed, the case
In Abbott Laboratories, et al., v Adelphia Supply USA (EDNY May 2, 2019), Plaintiffs filed a motion for case-ending sanctions against defendants H&H Wholesale Services, Inc., Howard Goldman, and Lori Goldman (for purposes of this blog, “Defendants”). The parties submitted briefing and Magistrate Judge Bloom held oral argument. On May 2, 2019, Judge Bloom