|
SPECIAL MASTER FAST FACT:
|
Courts often appoint Special Masters to help with resolution of relatively mundane disputes, such as the proper scope of discovery, whether claims of privilege are well-taken, the meaning of claim language in a patent case, and so on. Occasionally, however, a court will appoint a Special Master in more dire circumstances, such as "because the potential for bloodshed is real."
This was how Chief Judge Lawrence J. Piersol described the situation in Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (D. S.D.), which involved construction of a new recreational site on land where American Indian remains had
been found. Despite having issued injunctions delaying and then directing construction around grave
sites, angry skirmishes between Indian Tribe members and construction workers were escalating.
Finally, Judge Piersoll appointed a Special Master in 2003 to monitor the situation on-site. He appointed a Master who "not only had the power of the court, but was sensitive to
Sioux Indian ways, and knew how to communicate with all parties." The Special Master dramatically reduced the tension between the parties and the litigation resolved without incident.
|
|
Chief Little Soldier, Yankton Sioux
Fought in Battle of Little Bighorn
|
- Valdiva v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 1133441 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2010) (in a class action brought by California parolees, affirming the lower court’s adoption of the Special Master’s report recommending the court find the State in violation of an injunction related to parole revocation hearings).
- Consumer Advisory Bd. v. Harvey, 2010 WL 1037593 (D. Me. Mar. 19, 2010) (in an ongoing suit brought by former patients against a state-run institution for persons with various mental and developmental disabilities, finding the Special Master had completed all tasks related to monitoring the state’s compliance with a consent decree and discharging him with sincere gratitude for his tireless efforts).
- Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC, 2010 WL 1026980 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 18, 2010) (adopting the Special Master’s report and awarding the plaintiff-musician’s estate damages for copyright infringement).
- Cooley v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 2010 WL 910049 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2010) (affirming the Special Master’s rulings regarding the admissibility under Daubert of certain opinions of an expert neuropsychologist).
- Technology Licensing Corp. v. Thomson, Inc., 2010 WL 843560 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (in a patent infringement case involving technology used in television manufacturing, appointing a Special Master to construe several disputed terms used in the patents).
- 3D Sys., Inc. v. Envisiontec, Inc., 2010 WL 844586 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2010) (in an infringement case involving stereolithography patents, adopting the Special Master’s report recommending the court grant summary judgment of non-infringement as to two patents, but finding there existed genuine issues of material fact as to two other patents).
- Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2010 WL 890063 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2010) (reviewing the propriety of taxing to one of several parties various costs and fees charged by the Special Master, where the one party was arguably not a part of certain proceedings).
- Ball v. Rodgers, 2010 WL 797146 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2010) (in a case arising under the Medicaid and Americans with Disabilities Acts, finding plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the appointment of a Special Master was necessary to oversee the defendant’s compliance with the court’s orders).
- Flintkote Co. v. Gen. Accident Assurance Co. of Canada, 2010 WL 770181 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) (in an insurance dispute, affirming the lower court’s adoption of the Special Master’s report recommending admission of certain documents into evidence based on waiver of the work-product privilege).
- Black v. City and County of Honolulu, 2010 WL 653026 (D. Haw. Feb. 22, 2010) (in a successful retaliation suit brought by a former employee against her employer police department – where the retaliation occurred after an earlier, successful sexual harassment suit between the same parties – adopting the Special Master’s report recommending the plaintiff be awarded the bulk of her requested attorney fees).
STATE CASES
- Murrin v. Mosher, 2010 WL 1029306 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2010) (in a case alleging a real estate Ponzi scheme, affirming the lower court’s adoption of the Special Master’s report recommending the plaintiff either comply with post-judgment discovery requests or face contempt fines).
- In re SRBA, 2010 WL 963473 (Idaho Mar. 18, 2010) (in a water rights dispute between a city and its residents, affirming the lower court’s adoption of the Special Master’s report recommending the residents’ claim be disallowed as frivolous and awarding the city attorney’s fees and costs).
- In re Mathis, 2010 WL 889893 (Ga. Mar. 15, 2010) (adopting the Special Master’s report recommending an attorney receive a less-than-maximum penalty for violation of several professional responsibility rules, because the attorney cooperated with the state bar, demonstrated remorse, and paid his client five hundred dollars).
- Lees Inns of America, Inc. v. William R. Lee Irrevocable Trust, 2010 WL 908485 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2010) (in an action brought by minority shareholders against a corporation, affirming the lower court’s refusal to appoint a Special Master to appraise the value of the business, since the corporation failed to explain why the trial court’s usual assessment of expert valuation testimony was insufficient).
- Intergraph Corp. v. Bentley Sys. Inc., 2010 WL 876821 (Ala. Mar. 12, 2010) (in a breach of contract case arising from the sale of architectural software technology, affirming the lower court’s adoption of the Special Master’s recommendation related to the amount owed by the buyer for the technology, but reversing the lower court’s adoption of the Special Master’s recommendations related to lost profit damages).
- Caudill v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 758789 (Mich. Mar. 5, 2010) (concluding the defendant had waived any objection to the trial court’s appointment of a Special Master to oversee discovery, because the defendant did not object until six months after the appointment and after becoming unhappy with the Special Master’s rulings).
- Barnett v. Barnett, 2010 WL 680983 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2010) (in a divorce proceeding, affirming the lower court’s adoption of the Special Master’s recommendations related to division of assets and child custody).
- Foster v. Dingwall, 2010 WL 679069 (Nev. Feb. 25, 2010) (in a breach of fiduciary duty case brought by a majority of a corporation’s directors against one of the other directors, affirming the lower court’s order that the majority pay all of the Special Master’s fees for reviewing corporate records, since the majority was the losing party).
|
|
David R. Cohen is a Contributor to and Co-Editor of "Appointing Special Masters and Other Judicial Adjuncts: A Handbook for Judges (Academy of Court Appointed Masters 2009)."
This Bench Book is a terrific resource for Judges and Attorneys. Special Masters can make your life easier by devoting attention to multi-party discovery and privilege disputes, recommended rulings, and other complex issues (including settlement). My job is to streamline your case.
You can download a free copy of this Bench Book at www.SpecialMaster.biz. | |
David R. Cohen, Federal Special Master
- In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig.,
MDL 1535 (Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley)
- In re Oral Sodium Phosphate Soln. Prods. Liab. Litig.,
MDL 2066 (Judge Ann Aldrich)
|
|
SUBSCRIBE: New recipients can subscribe to Cohen's Special Master Case Reporter by signing up at www.SpecialMaster.biz.
UNSUBSCRIBE: If you want to stop receiving Cohen's Special Master Case Reporter, please use the "manage your subscription" link at the very bottom of this message. The Case Reporter only comes once a month!
FEEDBACK: Send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to: David@SpecialMaster.biz.
Copyright 2010 |
