Extract from Kelly Twigger’s article “#CaseoftheWeek Episode 77: Failing to Comply with Preservation Obligations (Part II)”
This week’s episode of Case of the Week is Part II of our analysis of In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 2022 WL 1082087 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), April 11, 2022 authored by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.
In Part I, Kelly Twigger reviewed the decision on the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b) and 37(e) for failure to preserve and violation of the ESI Protocol agreed to by the parties, and discuss how the defendant’s failure to comply with its preservation obligations set out in an ESI protocol can lead to sanctions.
Good morning, and welcome to episode 77 of our Case of the Week series, published in partnership with ACEDS. My name is Kelly Twigger. I am the CEO and founder of eDiscovery Assistant, as well as the Principal at ESI Attorneys. Thanks so much for joining me here today.
As you know, each week on our Case of the Week series, we choose a recent decision in eDiscovery that highlights key issues for litigators and talk about the practical application of that decision and what it means for you, your practice, and for your clients.
If you were with us for last week on our Case of the Week series, you heard part one of my discussion of this decision from In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, where we covered the Court’s ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. Today, as part two of that discussion, we’re going to cover the ruling on the defendant’s motion for sanctions against two plaintiffs in the case.
Let’s dive in. Now, we covered a lot of specific information about the Court’s analysis under Rule 37 on a motion for sanctions last week. We also covered in detail a lot of facts, most of which were only pertinent to the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. We’re going to dive back into this case, talking specifically about the motions for sanctions brought by Keurig against two of the plaintiffs, specifically under Rule 37(e)(1) for failure to preserve information. Both are seeking issue preclusion sanctions.
