-
Court Grants Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence After Plaintiff Admits to Destroying a Journal Which Should Have Been Produced
In Mitcham v. Americold Logistics, LLC, No. 17-cv-00808-WJM-NYW (D. Colo. 2017), Plaintiff Kim Mitcham (“Plaintiff”) began working for Americold as a Human Resource Manager in October of 2015. Plaintiff claimed she was harassed and discriminated against by her supervisor, and filed a formal complaint against him with the “MySafeWorkplace” hotline.
-
Court Orders Adverse Inference Instruction Against District of Columbia For Failing to Preserve Potentially Relevant Emails
In Nunnally v. Dist. of Columbia, 243 F. Supp. 3d 55 (D.C. 2017), the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence by Defendant. In 2004, Ronda Nunnally (“Nunnally”), a Lieutenant in the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”), filed a
-
Court Refuses to Enter Default Judgment Where Defendant Negligently Destroyed Video of Slip and Fall
In Patrick v. Tractor Supply, Co., No. 16-10755, (E.D. La., 2017), Plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case moves for default judgment due to Defendant’s spoliation of evidence. On May 27, 2016, following a slip-and-fall incident that occurred on November 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that while visiting Defendant’s
-
Court Finds Evidence of Spoliation in Employment Discrimination Action, Orders “Missing Evidence” Instruction Be Given to Jury
Vasser v. Shulkin, No. 14-0185, (Dist. Ct. D.C., 2017), involves an employment discrimination action brought by Plaintiff Vasser against David Shulkin in Shulkin’s capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Plaintiff claims that the VA discriminated and retaliated against her when it failed to promote
-
Court Declines to Answer Spoliation Question from Parties, Instead Discloses Instructions to Jury Regarding Spoliation
In GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., C.A. No.1201318-LPS, (Dist. Ct. D. Del., 2017), the Court states that rather than respond to spoliation-related questions posed by Plaintiff GN Netcom, Inc. (“GN” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant Plantronics, Inc. (“Plantronics” or “Defendant”), the Court has determined the jury instructions it will give
-
District Court Orders In Camera Examination of Privilege Log Documents, Overturning Magistrate’s Order
In Keathley v. Grange Insurance Co., of Mich., No. 15-cv-11888 (Dist. Ct. E.D. Mich., March 30, 2017), Plaintiff seeks to recover under an insurance policy issued by Defendant Grange Insurance Company (“Grange”) for water damage Plaintiff claims happened at her home as a result of burst pipes. Grange has denied
-
District Court Disagrees with Magistrate Over Privilege Waiver After Plaintiff Places Privileged Files on Public Shared Drive
In Harleysville Insurance Co. v. Holding Funeral Home, Inc., et. al., Case No. 15-0057 (W.D. Va., Feb 9, 2017), Plaintiff sued to determine that it does not owe Defendants for their fire loss claim because the fire was caused by arson, and because Defendants made material misrepresentations and failed to
-
Court Orders Adverse Inference Sanctions Against Defendant in Lynyrd Skynyrd Litigation, Arising From 3rd Party Spoliation of Text Messages
In the case of Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Artemis Pyle, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2017) the plaintiffs, Ronnie Van Zant, Inc., Gary Rossington, Johnny Van Zant, Barbara Houston, Alicia Rapp, and Carinna Gaines Biemiller (“Plaintiffs”) had sued former bandmate Artemis Pyle and Cleopatra Films and Records (“Defendants”) to stop them from
-
Third-Party Production Reveals that Defendant Deleted Emails; Court Issues Spoliation Sanctions
In Edelson v. Cheung, No. 2:13-cv-5870 (D.N.J. 2017), Plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant’s deletion of emails, arguing that a third party production revealed that Defendant had deleted emails and intended to keep an email account hidden from Plaintiff. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff instituted an action against Defendant Stephen
-
Court Finds Defendants’ Actions Unreasonable and Sufficient to Support a Finding They Acted with the Intent to Deprive Plaintiff of Evidence
In Moody vs. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 07-cv-6398P, (W.D.N.Y. Sept., 2017), the United States District Court for the Western District of New York called Defendant CSX Transportation’s Court found defendants’ actions unfathomable and they did not uphold their duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court dismissed