Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
The authors write "In this space nine years ago, nearly to the day, we analyzed the newly-enacted amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to e-discovery. These amendments included a new Rule 37(e), designed to govern the imposition of sanctions by a court when a party has failed to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”), thus resolving a circuit split on the degree of culpability required for certain sanctions."
December 02, 2024 at 12:23 PM
8 minute read
In this space nine years ago, nearly to the day, we analyzed the newly-enacted amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to e-discovery. These amendments included a new Rule 37(e), designed to govern the imposition of sanctions by a court when a party has failed to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”), thus resolving a circuit split on the degree of culpability required for certain sanctions.
Even after a herculean effort by the rules committee over many years in what was often a complex and challenging drafting process, we still wondered “Will new Rule 37(e) actually result in uniformity across the circuits or open the door for new judicial divergence?” One key issue was the notion, as documented in the corresponding advisory committee note, that Rule 37(e) foreclosed a court’s ability to rely on its inherent authority for imposing such sanctions.
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 AllAbsent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages
10 minute readEstablishing New Test for Cost-Shifting, Court Allocates Costs for Data Security in Discovery
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Big Law Partner Co-Launches Startup Aiming to Transform Fund Formation Process
- 2How the Court of Public Opinion Should Factor Into Litigation Strategy
- 3Debevoise Lures Another SDNY Alum, Adding Criminal Division Chief
- 4Cooley Promotes NY Office Leader to Global Litigation Department Chair
- 5What Happens When Lateral Partners’ Guaranteed Compensation Ends?
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