From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Jul 21, 2004
327 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2004)

Summary

holding that a fine of $2,995,000 payable to the Court Registry "is particularly appropriate here because [the Court has] no way of knowing what, if any, value destroyed emails had to Plaintiff's case; [therefore] . . . it [is] impossible to fashion a proportional evidentiary sanction that would accurately target the discovery violation. . . . [Yet], it is essential that such conduct be deterred . . . and that the amount of the monetary sanction fully reflect the reckless disregard and gross indifference displayed by [defendants] toward their discovery and document preservation obligations"

Summary of this case from Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA Technology, LLC

Opinion

Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK).

July 21, 2004


ORDER #601


Before the Court is Joint Defendants' Motion for Leave to Depose Dr. Gary Huber. Upon consideration of Joint Defendants' Motion, the United States' Opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, the Court concludes that the Motion must be denied for the following reasons:

1. The Motion is approximately two years old. Under Order #37, fact witness depositions were to be completed by July 1, 2002, and under Order #51, ¶ II.B, third-party document productions were to be initiated by December 1, 2002.

2. Trial is less than two months away. Granting the Motion would, despite Joint Defendants' representations to the contrary, disrupt the United States' and the Court's trial preparation efforts.

3. Joint Defendants rely almost entirely on facts which have been known to them since the United States first identified Dr. Huber on its witness list on December 3, 2001.

4. Joint Defendants have offered no convincing or persuasive explanation or justification for their extraordinary delay in seeking to take this third-party fact witness deposition — and documents — two months before trial.

5. The United States would be prejudiced by the granting of this Motion.


Summaries of

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Jul 21, 2004
327 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2004)

holding that a fine of $2,995,000 payable to the Court Registry "is particularly appropriate here because [the Court has] no way of knowing what, if any, value destroyed emails had to Plaintiff's case; [therefore] . . . it [is] impossible to fashion a proportional evidentiary sanction that would accurately target the discovery violation. . . . [Yet], it is essential that such conduct be deterred . . . and that the amount of the monetary sanction fully reflect the reckless disregard and gross indifference displayed by [defendants] toward their discovery and document preservation obligations"

Summary of this case from Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA Technology, LLC

imposing a monetary sanction where there is "no way of knowing what, if any, value" the destroyed evidence had, and it was "impossible to fashion a proportional evidentiary sanction"

Summary of this case from Geiger v. Z-Ultimate Self Def. Studios, LLC

precluding testimony of those witnesses who violated document retention policy

Summary of this case from Klett v. Green

ordering defendant to pay $ 2.75 million in fines

Summary of this case from Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs, LLC

ordering defendant to pay $2.75 million in fines

Summary of this case from Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC

ordering defendant to pay $2.75 million in fines

Summary of this case from PENSION COMM. OF UNIV. OF MONTREAL v. BANC OF AM. SEC

imposing monetary sanction of $2,750,000, to be paid to the Court Registry as punishment for egregious violation of preservation order and to reflect the reckless disregard and gross indifference displayed toward discovery and document preservation obligations

Summary of this case from Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc.

imposing monetary fines and costs for defendants' failure to preserve relevant electronic mail despite a court order to the contrary, reasoning that the amount of sanctions "fully reflect the reckless disregard and gross indifference displayed by [defendants] toward their discovery and documentation preservation obligations."

Summary of this case from Travelers Prop. Cas. of Am. v. Pavilion Dry Cleaners

precluding witnesses that had violated the document retention policy from testifying at trial

Summary of this case from MOSAID Techs. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
Case details for

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., f/k/a…

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Jul 21, 2004

Citations

327 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2004)

Citing Cases

PENSION COMM. OF UNIV. OF MONTREAL v. BANC OF AM. SEC

See, e.g., Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, No. 08 Civ. 8496, 2009 WL 2496275, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13,…

Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs, LLC

See, e.g., Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, No. 08 Civ. 8496, 262 F.R.D. 284, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS…