Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Issues Spoliation
Sanctions for 'Crashed' Hard Drive
In a case alleging civil-rights violations and infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff sought to explore claims about the authorship of a harassing letter he received from a city employee. The court initially denied the plaintiff's request to compel inspection of the city's computers but ordered the defendant to preserve 'everything.' The city assured the court that it would abide by the preservation order, but after a subsequent court order for production of three of its employees' hard drives, the defendant acknowledged that it had destroyed one of them. The defendant explained that the hard drive in question had been inadvertently discarded after the user's laptop 'crashed.' However, at a hearing before the court the city indicated that it found the laptop, with no explanation other than that it 'appeared.' Unsatisfied with the city's explanation, the plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions and default judgment. In turn, the defendant moved for clarification of the court's previous order to allow inspection or, in the alternative, for a protective order. The court found that the defendant had discarded the laptop with notice of its potential relevance, causing delay and additional expense to the plaintiff. While reserving judgment as to whether the defendant's actions warranted terminating sanctions, the court ordered monetary sanctions against the defendant in the amount of the plaintiff's attorney fees and traveling costs associated with bringing the motion. It also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's expert's fees and to bear the cost of a court-appointed special master. The court declined to consider the defendant's motion for clarification, directing the defendant to seek direction from the special master. Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 2007 WL 878575 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2007).
In a gender-discrimination suit, the defendant brought a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence, specifically seeking dismissal of the suit because the plaintiff disposed of her home computer after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim against the defendant. The plaintiff's home computer contained evidence relating to her lawsuit against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that she disposed of her computer after the hard drive crashed and her brother was unable to repair it. The court held that sanctions were appropriate because the computer contained evidence directly related to the plaintiff's claims and her efforts to mitigate her damages by finding another job after leaving defendant's company. The court determined that she disposed of the computer with a 'culpable state of mind' and that an adverse-inference jury instruction at trial was proper. Teague v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 1041191 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2007).
Court Issues Spoliation
Sanctions for 'Crashed' Hard Drive
In a case alleging civil-rights violations and infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff sought to explore claims about the authorship of a harassing letter he received from a city employee. The court initially denied the plaintiff's request to compel inspection of the city's computers but ordered the defendant to preserve 'everything.' The city assured the court that it would abide by the preservation order, but after a subsequent court order for production of three of its employees' hard drives, the defendant acknowledged that it had destroyed one of them. The defendant explained that the hard drive in question had been inadvertently discarded after the user's laptop 'crashed.' However, at a hearing before the court the city indicated that it found the laptop, with no explanation other than that it 'appeared.' Unsatisfied with the city's explanation, the plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions and default judgment. In turn, the defendant moved for clarification of the court's previous order to allow inspection or, in the alternative, for a protective order. The court found that the defendant had discarded the laptop with notice of its potential relevance, causing delay and additional expense to the plaintiff. While reserving judgment as to whether the defendant's actions warranted terminating sanctions, the court ordered monetary sanctions against the defendant in the amount of the plaintiff's attorney fees and traveling costs associated with bringing the motion. It also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's expert's fees and to bear the cost of a court-appointed special master. The court declined to consider the defendant's motion for clarification, directing the defendant to seek direction from the special master. Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 2007 WL 878575 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2007).
In a gender-discrimination suit, the defendant brought a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff for spoliation of evidence, specifically seeking dismissal of the suit because the plaintiff disposed of her home computer after filing an
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.