Kucala's legacy continues with Communications Center

Kucala is an often cited case involving Evidence Eliminator. In the category of "I could not make that up," I am not sure that I could come with a worse name for a program when defending against a motion for sanctions.

Well, Evidence Eliminator is back in Communications Center, Inc. v. Matthew J. Hewitt, No. CIV S-03-1968 WBS KJM (E.D. CA, April 5, 2005). In Hewitt, the Court extensively discussed the use of Evidence Elminator and Hewitt's explanation: I was having an affair, and didn't want my wife to find my porn. Nice. Basically, "I'm an adulterer, who's into porn, but not someone who ignores discovery requests." Of course, he did ignore the plaintiff's discovery requests, so the Court sanctioned him $145K in attorneys' fees and entered a default judgment (pending approval by the district court).

But wait there's more. Then the court said: "Although plaintiff requests the entry of default judgment, the issue of damages has not been briefed and evidence has not been submitted in this regard." In other words, $145K, like the old punchline says, is "a good start." Welcome to the bottom of the ocean.

[I am still trying to figure out how to upload a file -- as opposed to a picture -- to this blog. I know, I know, some rocket scientist. Once I learn how to do it, I will upload the pdf I have of the decision.]