11 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Sanctions" AND cat:"Discovery"'.
J. Rice denies the employee's motion for sanctions, ruling his claim regarding the university's failure to preserve certain discovery documents in their "native format" is entirely speculative and, in any case, is not premised on any sort of prejudice to his case or the lawsuit in general.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Rice, Filed On: May 14, 2024, Case #: 3:18cv358, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, sanctions, discovery
J. Bryan partially grants Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su's motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence regarding her complaint that USPS fired a probationary employee for reporting a workplace injury. USPS should expand its search for certain emails and text messages of all supervisors and managers within a certain district. Furthermore, negative inferences will be drawn against USPS regarding the content of lost electronic communications and whether the USPS's proffered "poor performance" justification for the firing was pretext.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Bryan, Filed On: January 2, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv5007, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: employment, sanctions, discovery
J. Docherty grants the employer's motion to amend the scheduling order in a case brought by six employees alleging racial and disability discrimination and harassment, and partially grants its motion to compel production of previously requested material, allow continued depositions, permit third-party discovery and for an award of costs associated with late disclosures. The motion to compel is denied without prejudice as relating to communications with one employee prior to her retaining of representation, since acknowledging the existence of such communications would fall under Fifth Amendment privilege. Production of other requested materials is ordered. A motion for sanctions is granted since, if the employer is correct in stating that the employees intentionally concealed evidence, the employees have inexcusably sought to subvert the legal system.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Docherty, Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv1904, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: sanctions, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Winmill grants in part an employee's motion for sanctions in a suit where she alleges that her supervisor sexually harassed her. During litigation, the employer was sanctioned for concealing evidence and misrepresenting facts and later held in contempt for failing to make any effort to pay the employee's award of attorney fees. The employee now alleges discovery misconduct relating to other evidence. The employer's failure to produce the documents prejudiced the employee. The employer is prohibited from contesting the employee's claim that the company had fifteen or more employees, finding "this less drastic remedy is a sufficient sanction."
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Winmill, Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: 4:19cv287, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, sanctions, discovery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Pham denies the plaintiff employee's motion for discovery sanctions in this lawsuit alleging sex discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. The former employee seeks sanctions against the employer after surveillance video of an alleged incident with a coworker was not produced. Sanctions are not appropriate, however, because the defendant company had no duty to preserve the evidence at the time it allegedly erased the video pursuant to its video retention policy.
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Pham, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv2705, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: sanctions, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Berg grants GEICO's motion to compel depositions from 13 insureds in a class action brought by non-exempt adjusters who say they were not paid overtime or for all hours worked. The 13 opt-in class members at issue failed to show up for their depositions despite being properly notified. However, GEICO is not entitled to sanctions for the insureds' failure to appear because GEICO unilaterally picked depositions dates despite a prior court order explicitly requiring such depositions to proceed on dates that were "mutually agreeable" for the witness and both sets of counsel.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Berg, Filed On: November 17, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv1751, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: employment, sanctions, discovery
M.J. Eifert grants in part the contracting services firm and its subsidiary’s motion for sanctions against the former director of marketing for her failure to produce legible text messages and an answer to an interrogatory regarding her absences from work in her sexual harassment suit, finding her “current answers convey an utter lack of effort on her part to collect the information that would allow her to answer.” The court directs the firm to submit an affidavit of reasonable fees and costs associated with its motion by Aug. 31, and orders the former director to respond to the discovery requests by Sept. 14.
Court: USDC Southern District of West Virginia, Judge: Eifert, Filed On: August 15, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv375, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, sanctions, discovery