Plaintiffs claim to have sustained personal injuries while doing work for Defendant Vezer Industrial Professionals, Inc. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order ("PTSO") so as to permit a motion to compel to be heard before the assigned magistrate judge. Vezer Industrial Professionals, Inc., a California Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joseph C Owens, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Jones, Archer Norris.Ĭentral Sun Mining, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lisa G. Warshaw, Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP.ī2 Gold, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lisa G. Pinpoint Holdings, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Robert G. Vezer Industrial Professionals, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph C Owens, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Merman, PHV, Simon & Luke, LLP, PRO HAC VICE & Robert R. Luke, PHV, Simon & Luke, PRO HAC VICE.īrigette Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Conrad Sheffer, Dreyer, Babich, Buccola & Callaham, LLP, Derek S. Michael Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Conrad Sheffer, Dreyer, Babich, Buccola & Callaham, LLP, Derek S. This case is just another example that even small companies must pay attention to their ESI preservation obligations once those obligations are triggered.Ruben Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Conrad Sheffer, Dreyer, Babich, Buccola & Callaham, LLP, Derek S. The court found the company had “proceeded with business as usual, without making any special effort to retain ESI relevant to this litigation.”Īlthough the court concluded the death penalty (a default judgment) was inappropriate in the case, the court did award monetary sanctions.The court reiterated the following warning to lawyers: “Defense counsel’s apparent failure, in this electronic age, to verify with appropriate representatives of their client whether there was an e-mail backup system, cannot be countenanced.” According to the court, the fact that one of the key players’ computer crashed was “no excuse” given that the witness admitted he did not backup any of his ESI.The court said these facts were not valid explanations for the minimal to no effort made by the company to preserve relevant ESI, including documents sent, received, or created by key players. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that it was a “small company,” that the case was not document intensive, and that most relevant communications took place by phone or in person.Two of the defendant’s executives, including the owner, admitted they made no effort to retrieve potentially relevant ESI from their computers.The court in Perez found the defendant had breached its discovery obligations, noting the following: 2011) involved a truck accident, but the lawsuit quickly reached the point where the plaintiff sought a default judgment against the defendant for failure to preserve emails and other ESI. Even for a “small company,” the failure to comply with discovery obligations to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) can be dangerous.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |