-
Spoliation Sanction Ruling Affirmed, Defendant Destroyed Records Although Had Already Contemplated Litigation Re Asbestos
In Warren v. Anchem Products, et al., J-M Manufacturing Company, No. 5493N 40000 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 18, 2018), the Supreme Court Appellate Division, New York County considered whether a lower court award of spoliation sanctions in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“JMM”) was an abuse
-
In Deciding Spoliation Sanctions Motion, Court Determines if Police Defendants Intended to Destroy Cell Phones
In Dotson, et al. v. Edmonson, et al., No. 16-15371, (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2018), the issue considered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was whether sanctions were warranted based upon claims of spoliation re phone records. Lyle Dotson, et al., (“Plaintiff”) moved for
-
In Sanctions Motion Based Upon Spoliation Claim, Plaintiff Claims Defendant Acted with Intent to Deprive Him of ESI
In Hernandez v. Tulare Correctional Center, et al., No. 1:16-cv-00413-EPG, (Dist. Court California, 2018), the Court was called upon to determine a request for sanctions based upon a spoliation claim. Albert Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on April 21, 2015, he was pre-trial detainee at Tulare County Correctional Center (“Defendant”). Plaintiff
-
No Spoliation Sanctions Where Moving Party Offered No Proof of Intent
In Wooden v. Barringer, et al., No. 3:16-cv-446-MCR-GRJ, (N.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2017), Gregory Wooden (“Plaintiff”) filed a grievance over excessive force against Officer Clyde Barringer (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to litigate on April 12, 2016. Defendants produced three video recordings. Plaintiff claimed spoliation, saying the videos
-
Court Retains Jurisdiction to Issue Sanctions Against Defendant City Fire Department for Spoliation of Evidence in Sexual Harassment Case
In Dena Lewis-Bystrzycki v. City of Country Club Hills, No. 2012 L 009916, (Cir. Ct. Cook County, 2017), the Court ordered sanctions against the Defendants (collective) City of Country Club Hills Fire Department after it became apparent that Defendants had wiped data from a network storage drive for computer backups
-
No New Trial in Case Where Court Imposed $5 Million Fine for Defendant’s Spoliation
In G.N. Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 12-1318-LPS, (Dist. Ct. Del. 2017), Plaintiff, GN Netcom, Inc. (“GN”) moved for a new trial based on the court’s handling of issues relating to Defendant Plantronics’ spoliation of evidence. At trial, the court had ordered a permissive adverse inference, imposed financial sanctions of $5
-
Court Partially Grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation in a Breach of Contract Dispute
In Hefter Impact Techs., LLC v. Sport Maska, Inc., No. 15-13290-FDS (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2017), the Plaintiff Hefter Impact Technologies, LLC (“HIT”) sold its ice-hockey helmet design to the Defendant, Sport Maska, Inc., d/b/a Reebok — CCM Hockey (“CCM”). CCM agreed to pay HIT royalties on its helmets based
-
Court Dismisses Case, Finding No Facts To Support Spoliation of Evidence
Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., No.3:16-cv-1574-J-34JBT, Dist. Court (M.D. FL 2017) involves preservation of Shawnta Braithwaite’s (“Braithwaite”) 2007 Acura following an accident that injured her and others. Braithwaite’s insurer, Progressive, took possession of the car. Braithwaite filed suit against ACME due to its negligent roadwork. Plaintiff Steadfast is
-
Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions When Evidence Requested Was Not Lost and Plaintiff Was Not Prejudiced By Deprivation of Information
In Barcroft Media, LTD. v. Coed Media Group, LLC, No. 16-cv-7634 Dist. Court (S.D.NY. 2017), Plaintiffs, providers of celebrity photographs, brought intellectual property claims against Defendants relating to use of certain celebrity photographs on Defendant’s pop culture and celebrity gossip websites. Plaintiffs filed a motion for spoliation sanctions pursuant to Rule
-
Court Denies Defendant’s Motion for Spoliation; Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff
In IBM v. Naganayagam, No. 15-cv-7991, (S.D.N.Y. 2017), Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and Defendant filed a cross-action pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for spoliation sanctions. In this action, the Plaintiff sought to rescind several Equity Award Agreements (“EAAs”) given to Defendant