Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ispat Inland, Inc. v. Kemper Environmental

November 30, 2006

ISPAT INLAND, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEMPER ENVIRONMENTAL, LTD., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Pitman, United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Defendant Kemper Environmental, Ltd ("Kemper") moves for sanctions based on defendant's alleged perjury and spoliation of evidence (Docket Item 41). For the reasons set forth below, Kemper's motion is denied in all respects.

II. Facts

The pending motion is primarily based on events that occurred during the deposition of Marc Jeske, an attorney in Ispat Inland, Inc.'s ("Ispat's") law department, on August 17, 2006.

During the initial phase of his deposition, Kemper's counsel asked Jeske a number of questions concerning what Jeske had done to prepare for the deposition. Among other things, Jeske testified that he had reviewed 15-20 documents on three occasions (Transcript of the Deposition of Marc Jeske, conducted on August 17, 2006 ("Jeske Tr."), at 30-31). Jeske testified that the only documents that refreshed his recollection were certain 10-K filings and letter he had sent to Joyce Mims (Jeske Tr. at 35). After eliciting this testimony, Kemper's counsel left the subject and questioned Jeske about a deposition transcript that Jeske had also reviewed (Jeske Tr. 40-47).

After questioning Jeske about the deposition transcript, Kemper's counsel asked Jeske additional questions about the documents he had reviewed and elicited the following testimony:

Q. Now, you talked about -- let's get it clear. Here's what you reviewed: A week ago, you said you and Mr. Scherschel and counsel looked at documents. Where did you look at these documents? You said the three of you came up with it.

Q. That was your testimony, not mine. If you want to change it at any point in time.

A. Where did we look at the documents?

Q. You said collectively we came up with 20 documents. That was your testimony. I could have it read back. You said collectively you came up with 20 documents.

A. That was in our office.

Q. (Plaintiff's counsel] was there a week ago and Mr. Scherschel and you?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you got you in a room and did [plaintiff's counsel] bring documents that day?

A. I believe so.

Q. And did Mr. Scherschel have other documents?

A. I believe so.

Q. Don't look at him. This is you and me. He doesn't count. And how did you -- how did you go about the process of selecting which documents you should use to prepare for your dep?

[A.] I had conversations with both of them.

Q. And then did you go look for other documents in addition to the documents [plaintiff's counsel'] furnished you ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.