嘶叫 & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 5218035 (M.D. Fla. 八月. 3, 2009);MD�BFLA & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2010 WL 55595 (M.D. Fla. 約翰. 5, 2010)

Following her finding that “[嘶叫 & Gillespie], through counsel, acted willfully and in bad faith in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s orders” by failing to make reasonable efforts to search for and produce documents in response to court orders and by making repeated misrepresentations to the court, 除其他事項, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiff’s claims be stricken and that the case be dismissed with prejudice.  (For additional details of plaintiff’s discovery abuses, click here to be taken to a summary of a prior opinion in this case.)  On review of that recommendation, the District Court Judge found total dismissal of all the plaintiff’s claims “an excessive remedy” and instead ordered the dismissal of all claims for damages arising from the alleged interruption of business at the Treasure Island Property and for the plaintiff to pay $75,000 被告為追求其運動所產生的費用為制裁.

在其看來, the District Court acknowledged the egregious nature of plaintiff’s and plaintiff’s counsel’s many discovery failings.  Despite these many violations, 不過, the court found the sanction of total dismissal of all claims “excessive” and chose instead to dismiss only the claims related to the Treasure Island Property, the property for which the late discovered evidence was relevant.  Declining to adopt the Magistrate’s recommendation, the District Court found the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s failure to produce the Treasure Island evidence prevented the defendant from interviewing persons who could describe the condition of the Resort “unpersuasive” where the defendant admitted that certain relevant individuals had been “available to Defendant since the inception of litigation” and had not been interviewed.  Also, the defendant’s appraisers had access to the relevant property throughout the relevant time period and took photos of the property to support the defendant’s case.  The court also noted that the plaintiff’s conduct “has only related to the production of folios for the Treasure Island Property” and that “[噸]o speculate without any evidentiary support that Plaintiff’s conduct in this area undermines the integrity of all discovery provided in the case is not appropriate.”

通過 地方法院駁回共有解僱索賠, 訂單部分和解僱 $75,000 在金融制裁對嚴重違規的發現 : 電子發現法.