Latest Articles
- All Relevant Employee ESI Must Be Disclosed
- Law Firm Sanctioned For Email Spoliation
- Carefully Choose Search Protocol In Litigation
- Court Orders Inspection Of Hard Drive After Delays In ESI Disclosures
- Archiving The Internet – One Snapshot At A Time
- Purposeful Email Deletion Results In Sanctions and Scolding
- Finding ESI Search Efforts Unclear, Court Requires More Discovery
- New Article Explores Metadata
- Suspicious Email Results In Dismissal Of Employee’s Claims
- New Opinion Illustrates How Quickly ESI Issues May Proceed in Court
Editor Bio
Gregg Mayer is a journalist and lawyer with a keen interest in the rapidly evolving world of e-Discovery. Gregg has published numerous articles, including writing for law journals and the American Bar Association. Gregg served as editor-in-chief of the Mississippi Law Journal. Before practicing law, Gregg worked as a newspaper reporter for six years.
Qualcomm Agrees To $8.5 million Sanctions For e-Discovery Violation
Posted by Gregg Mayer on Friday, February 29th, 2008
Qualcomm, Inc. has agreed to pay more than $8 million in sanctions for apparently hiding the existence of damaging email during litigation.
The discovery violation came to light during a patent dispute between Qualcomm and competitor Broadcom.
In January, a federal magistrate judge ordered Qualcomm to pay $8.5 million in sanctions for not disclosing email to Broadcom despite Qualcomm’s lawyers’ knowledge of the existence of the email. It was described as a “monumental” discovery violation.
According to a law.com article:
The attorneys “assisted Qualcomm in committing this incredible discovery violation by intentionally hiding or recklessly ignoring relevant documents, ignoring or rejecting numerous warning signs that Qualcomm’s document search was inadequate, and blindly accepting Qualcomm’s unsupported assurances that its document search was adequate,” [Judge] Major wrote.
The judge also sanctioned Qualcomm for intentionally withholding “tens of thousands of e-mails.” Qualcomm will have to pay Broadcom’s $8.5 million attorney fees — though that award mirrors a sanction already imposed by another judge.
Late this month, Qualcomm has paid the money. As reported on the e-Discovery law blog:
Qualcomm states that it acccepts the sanctions imposed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major and is not appealing or filing any objections to the January 7, 2008 Sanctions Order. Qualcomm further advises that it has now paid to Broadcom the full $8,568,633.24 monetary sanction ordered by the Magistrate Judge, and notes that it is participating in good faith in the CREDO program.
Read the full report, including Qualcomm’s court pleading, here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.