Court Determines iPhone Evidence To Be Fabricated, Dismisses Case
In this edition of their Federal E-Discovery column, H. Christopher Boehning and Daniel J. Toal discuss a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, where the defense's adept handling of key evidence they suspected had been fabricated resulted in severe sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel, including a dismissal with prejudice.
October 04, 2021 at 12:00 PM
7 minute read
At the start of the era of e-discovery, electronically stored information (ESI)—a term not even coined at the time—was relatively straightforward. One could perhaps expect to encounter a small set of WordPerfect documents and a PST file or two. Times have changed; today we can expect ESI to be comprised of vast quantities of information from a multitude of communication and office systems. What has not changed—and indeed is now more crucial than ever—is the need for parties and counsel to maintain technological expertise around ESI and the e-discovery process. This was demonstrated in a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, where the defense's adept handling of key evidence they suspected had been fabricated resulted in severe sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel, including a dismissal with prejudice.
'Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.'
In the employment discrimination case Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2021 WL 3421569 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her on multiple occasions and that her objections to the harassment led to retaliation and her firing. As her primary documentary evidence of the alleged harassment, the plaintiff offered an image purportedly depicting three inappropriate text messages sent to her iPhone 5 in June and November of 2017. See id. at *2.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudgment of Partition and Sale Vacated for Failure To Comply With Heirs Act: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Legaltech Rundown: McDermott Will & Emery Invests $10 million in The LegalTech Fund, LexisNexis Releases Conversational Search for Nexis+ AI, and More
- 2The TikTokification of the Courtroom
- 3New Jersey’s Arbitration Appeal Deadline—A Call for Clarity
- 4Law Firms Look to Gen Z for AI Skills, as 'Data Becomes the Oil of Legal'
- 55th Circuit Strikes Down Law Barring Handgun Sales to Adults Under 21
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250