This case involves Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Sanctions against Defendant CMD, LLC for failing to comply with discovery orders issued by the Court. The Plaintiff sought a default judgment against CMD, claiming that CMD's responses to interrogatories were inadequate and evasive. Specifically, Plaintiff accused CMD of objecting to interrogatories based on a baseless jurisdiction motion, providing false responses, and failing to fully comply with prior orders by submitting what the Court deemed to be a "document dump" instead of proper answers. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that CMD had not produced all necessary documents in compliance with the Court's orders, hindering the Plaintiff’s ability to prove its claims.

The magistrate judge found that, while CMD’s conduct was problematic, a default judgment was not warranted. Instead, the magistrate judge recommended less severe sanctions, including preventing CMD from using or testifying about any documents that had not been produced. However, Plaintiff objected to this recommendation, arguing that the proposed sanctions would allow CMD to continue concealing important facts needed to support its conspiracy claims.

In reviewing the case, the Court emphasized the standards for imposing sanctions, especially default judgments, noting that they should only be used when a party has willfully or in bad faith failed to comply with discovery orders. The Court concluded that CMD did not demonstrate such bad faith or willfulness in failing to produce documents, and as a result, the request for a default judgment was denied. The Court also affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s alternative request for severe monetary sanctions, a forensic expert, and a renewed deposition of CMD’s corporate representative.

The Court further addressed Plaintiff's request for a forensic expert to examine CMD’s records. The Court noted that a forensic examination is an extreme remedy and can only be justified in cases where there is strong evidence of intentional destruction of evidence or discovery evasion. Since there was no claim that CMD intentionally destroyed evidence, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a forensic expert. However, the Court agreed with the magistrate judge’s recommendation that CMD be precluded from using any documents at trial that had not been provided to the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the Court affirmed the magistrate judge's findings.  CMD was sanctioned by being barred from using certain documents at trial, but the more severe sanctions requested by the Plaintiff were not imposed.

If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Nicole Gill, Chair, Managing Member CODISCOVR. With almost a decade of experience, she manages complex and high-profile eDiscovery projects and routinely navigates data and privacy protection laws across many domestic and foreign jurisdictions.