Quantcast
Home (page 3)

Tag Archives: Discovery

Insurance – Fire – Rescission — Nightclub Vacancy – Occasional Use – Insurance Application Answers – Bad Faith Counterclaim – Civil Practice – Discovery – 2C Witness (access required)

Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Cooper The defendant-insured says he told his insurance agent that he used the otherwise vacant nightclub building for occasional events; however, the agent says the insured told him the building was vacant, so that is what he noted on the insurance application. There is a jury question as to whether the insured provided false information on the insurance application.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Service of Process – Certified Mail – Authorized Agent – Default – Discovery (access required)

Graham Law Firm, P.A. v. Makawi Plaintiff served process on defendants by certified mail. Before the trial court ruled that unauthorized agents had signed for the summonses and complaints, the court should have allowed plaintiff to conduct discovery on the signers’ authority to accept service for defendants. We reverse and remand the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion to set aside default judgment.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Discovery – Sanctions – Deposition Rescheduling – Medical Reasons – Nightclub Appearances – Community Service (access required)

Dash v. Mayweather Defendant obtained yet another delay of his deposition by representing to the court that he was recuperating from injuries sustained in a boxing match. However, on the day the deposition was to have taken place, defendant made an advertised appearance at a nightclub. Since defendant is a wealthy individual, the court exercises its inherent authority to fashion an appropriate sanction. Defendant is ordered to perform 40 hours of community service at the Las Vegas Habitat for Humanity Project by Jan. 31, 2012.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Discovery – Egregious Violations – Email Deletions – Sanction – Dismissal (access required)

Eastern Business Forms, Inc. v. Davin Plaintiff disobeyed two of this court’s discovery orders, falsely represented on numerous occasions that the requested emails did not exist because there had been no communication by email, and systematically deleted the emails which were relevant to defendants’ counterclaims and which were responsive to defendants’ discovery requests. Plaintiff acted willfully, in bad faith, and with gross indifference to defendants’ rights. As the only appropriate sanction for such egregious discovery abuse, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff shall pay defendants’ attorney’s fees relating to this discovery dispute and the entire cost of the forensic examination of plaintiff’s computers.

Read More »

“Egregious” effort to hide documents leads to dismissal of case (access required)

The end of October was approaching, and South Carolina Business Court Judge Edward R. Miller had had enough. One month before the trial in Eastern Business Forms v. Bradley F. Davin was scheduled to begin, and after 41 months of incessant battling among attorneys — including 10 separate hearings about a discovery dispute, the use of a forensic computer expert and two hearings on a motion for sanctions — Miller resorted to an oft-threatened but rarely imposed sanction: He dismissed the complaint with prejudice because of the plaintiff’s discovery abuses.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Discovery – Egregious Violations – Email Deletions – Sanction – Dismissal (access required)

Eastern Business Forms, Inc. v. Davin Plaintiff disobeyed two of this court’s discovery orders, falsely represented on numerous occasions that the requested emails did not exist because there had been no communication by email, and systematically deleted the emails which were relevant to defendants’ counterclaims and which were responsive to defendants’ discovery requests. Plaintiff acted willfully, in bad faith, and with gross indifference to defendants’ rights.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence – Personal Injury – Civil Practice – Discovery – Confidentiality – In Camera Review – Foster Children (access required)

N.G. ex rel. Gaymon v. South Carolina Department of Social Services Even though S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1990 generally prohibits disclosure of documents falling within its scope, it does allow disclosure to "parties to a court proceeding in which information in the records is legally relevant and necessary for the determination of an issue before the court, if before the disclosure the judge has reviewed the records in camera, has determined the relevancy and necessity of the disclosure, and has limited disclosure to legally relevant information under a protective order."

Read More »