http://ow.ly/8Ugv0
An article by Craig Ball, Esq. on his blog Ball in Your Court.
This article discusses the recent Pippins v. KPMG case. Another article posted on law.com that discusses this same case was also posted on the litigation support technology and news blog earlier today.
Mr. Ball's article applauds the recent court order and states, "KPMG trotted out vague proportionality arguments and went so far as to argue that the plaintiffs themselves–the Audit Associates suing for the overtime–weren’t key players. The court termed the argument “nonsense;” and truly, if the roles were reversed, wouldn’t KPMG argue that plaintiffs are parties, parties are key players and key players must preserve evidence? Sauce! Goose! Gander! Honk!
Pulling no punches, Judge McMahon characterized KPMG’s conduct as “hiding behind the stay of discovery” She wrote, “KPMG has inappropriately used the discovery stay as a shield, relying on it in refusing to produce even a few hard drives so Plaintiffs could examine them. Judge Cott put it perfectly: ‘At this point it is not entirely clear what the hard drives contain, in part because of KPMG’s own efforts to keep that information at bay.’”"
No comments:
Post a Comment