Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
A Federal Magistrate Judge recommended the defendants be defaulted and pay attorneys fee in Gutman v. Klein sends a clear message for litigation throughout the US. Regardless of whether the Federal Judge adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, it is clear that we will see more headlines like this in the future in state and federal courts. Spoliation of relevant evidence is a serious problem whether the evidence is electronic or otherwise.
What Did the Defendants Do?
Apparently in this 5 year lawsuit the defendants were well-aware of that there was relevant evidence on one of their laptop computers. So the while the plaintiff’s expert waited about two hours at the defendant’s residence to get the laptop, apparently the defendant destroyed the contents of the laptop hard drive. When the laptop was turned over for copying “...it was hot to the touch and a screw was missing from its hard drive enclosure.” Later it was determined that the defendant wiped off relevant evidence from the laptop hard drive by manually deleting files, and reinstalled Windows XP to try to cover his tracks.
Role of Forensic Review
My friend Erin Nealy Cox who is a Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel at Stroz Friedberg sent a story about this case since the Magistrate Judge appointed Stroz Friedberg as a Forensic Expert to analyze the laptop hard drive. Ultimately the Stroz Friedberg Expert Report demonstrated what the defendant had done. It seems clear that intentional destruction of the contents of the laptop hard drive was spoliation, and since +95% of all information is now electronic it seems likely that we will see more cases where parties intentionally destroy relevant evidence. Also it seems clear that courts will appoint Forensic Experts and Special Masters to assist them in analyzing electronic evidence. Having served as a Special Master in cases for more than 20 years it clear that a Special Master can represent the Court best in these types of cases where the parties’ experts cannot since they offer opinions generally in favor of their clients.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.