Law Office of Douglas T. Harris, Esq. v. Philadelphia Waterfront Partners, LP, 2008 WL 4291319 (Pa. Super. Sept. 22, 2008)

In this case involving breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, plaintiff had requested the production of certain email and documents maintained on the computers of two individual defendants.  When defendants failed to produce the requested material, plaintiff moved to compel. At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel informed the court that the two computers were inoperable and that technicians were currently working on the computers.  The court pressed defense counsel for an explanation of how the computers were broken, and observed that plaintiff was entitled to the information that had been requested.  When the court asked defense counsel what order it should enter, defense counsel responded:  "We can produce the computers."  After the court entered its order, defendants appealed. Read more here.




In this product liability litigation, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss claiming the plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline for court ordered initial disclosures. After the plaintiff failed to make initial disclosures despite a second order and extended deadline, the defendants sent a letter in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. Finding the plaintiff completely failed to comply with any discovery requirements and respond to the motion to dismiss, the court dismissed the plaintiff's case without prejudice for failure to meet discovery obligations and comply with court orders.




In this antitrust litigation, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel seeking the completed production of paper documents and electronically stored information (ESI). The defendants had been continually producing documents on a "rolling basis" and had not specified a completion date. Addressing the plaintiffs' motion, the court noted the defendants' production was due four months prior and ordered completed production of all non-privileged documents and responsive ESI within seven days. Noting this dispute was the fifth discovery motion filed in this litigation, the court reminded both parties that discovery is supposed to occur with minimal judicial intervention. The court also warned both parties sanctions would be imposed if further "discovery shenanigans" or other discovery abuse were to occur.




In this litigation involving an alleged breach of a dealer agreement between the plaintiff distributer and the defendant dealer, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel production and sought sanctions. The plaintiff sought paper and electronic documents from the defendant's server and argued the defendant's withholding of responsive documents and incomplete responses justified sanctions. The defendant argued that either the documents did not exist due to the destruction caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, or that production would occur if the current searches yielded responsive information. Finding the defendant's responses to date to be insufficient as they appeared to have been conducted "lackadaisically," the court ordered the defendant to bear the costs of employing a third-party computer forensic analyst to search its server and produce the requested information. The court also granted sanctions in part, awarding costs to the plaintiff incurred in issuing a third-party subpoena and in seeking insurance information.

In this insurance contract dispute, the defendants moved for a protective order to prevent the plaintiff from inquiring into various topics contained in the plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's notice of the topic regarding "knowledge concerning the storage, preservation and backup" of e-mail was irrelevant to the breach of contract claim. The plaintiff stated that he communicated with the defendants via e-mail about his claim, requested all e-mail relating to his claim, and yet received almost no e-mail. The court held that the plaintiff had not met his burden of establishing the topic's relevance after noting that the defendants asserted the plaintiff had not referenced any specific missing e-mails. The court granted the defendants' motion for a protective order in part and denied in part; the court granted the motion with respect to the topic of e-mail storage, preservation and backup.