Search for: "spoliation adverse inference"
Results 141 - 160
of 509
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2017, 9:00 pm
., Dec. 8, 2016), Illinois District Judge John Robert Blakey granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to compel discovery, for spoliation sanctions, and to extend the discovery deadline, finding that the defendant’s request for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims and entry of default judgment or issuance of an adverse inference instruction was “not commensurate with the harm implicated here”, opting...Read the whole entry... [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 3:53 pm
Addressing whether Plaintiff was also entitled to an adverse inference, the court indicated it was “less clear” and a “close” question citing Rule 37(e)(2) which allows such sanctions “only if Defendants intentionally allowed the video to be destroyed,” and also indicated its disagreement with the magistrate judge’s determination that Plaintiff presented “no evidence of intent. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 3:53 pm
Addressing whether Plaintiff was also entitled to an adverse inference, the court indicated it was “less clear” and a “close” question citing Rule 37(e)(2) which allows such sanctions “only if Defendants intentionally allowed the video to be destroyed,” and also indicated its disagreement with the magistrate judge’s determination that Plaintiff presented “no evidence of intent. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:00 pm
Lloyd issued permissive adverse inference instruction sanctions against the defendant for deleting relevant text messages “with the intent to deprive” the plaintiff of the use of those text messages and for failing to produce native-format data that it was repeatedly ordered to produce. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 9:00 am
” Spoliation can result in the court issuing various degrees of sanctions, ranging from an adverse inference, a prohibition from introducing anything related to the spoliated evidence, striking pleadings, payment of attorneys’ fees, or the most harsh sanction – a complete dismissal of the case. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 1:20 pm
” Ultimately, the court ordered a second permissive adverse inference. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 1:20 pm
” Ultimately, the court ordered a second permissive adverse inference. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 9:26 am
Spoliation of Evidence in Virginia Under Virginia law, when a party loses or destroys evidence that should have been passed to the opposing party at trial, the opposing party is entitled to an adverse inference instruction. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 5:00 am
As noted, the court also held in abeyance the Plaintiff’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction for Spoliation of Cell Phone Evidence for the trial judge to decide. [read post]
16 Jul 2016, 7:17 am
The Court next evaluated the appropriate sanctions to impose and decided to impose against Defendant the following: (1) monetary sanctions in the form of the reasonable fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in connection with the spoliation disputes; (2) punitive sanctions in the amount of $3 million dollars; (3) possible evidentiary sanctions during trial, if requested in the future by Plaintiff and found by the Court to be warranted; and (4) sanction instructions to the jury that it… [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 2:01 pm
In less egregious circumstances, where a party destroys evidence inadvertently or unintentionally, the judge will generally allow an “adverse inference” jury instruction. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 2:01 pm
In less egregious circumstances, where a party destroys evidence inadvertently or unintentionally, the judge will generally allow an “adverse inference” jury instruction. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 2:01 pm
In less egregious circumstances, where a party destroys evidence inadvertently or unintentionally, the judge will generally allow an “adverse inference” jury instruction. [read post]
24 May 2016, 10:00 pm
» Related StoriesFailure to Extend Preservation Hold to Headquarters Does Not Lead To Adverse Inference Sanction: eDiscovery Case LawDefendant Sanctioned for Loss of Emails During Provider Switch, But No Sanction For Wiped Hard Drive: eDiscovery Case LawCourt Orders Plaintiff to Perform a “Download Your Info” From Facebook: eDiscovery Case Law [read post]
11 May 2016, 7:08 am
Indeed, the compulsory adverse inference instruction the court imposed against the defendants in this case helps assure that the plaintiff will not be unduly limited in succeeding at trial. [read post]
11 May 2016, 7:08 am
Indeed, the compulsory adverse inference instruction the court imposed against the defendants in this case helps assure that the plaintiff will not be unduly limited in succeeding at trial. [read post]
1 May 2016, 10:00 pm
Mariani denied the plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference sanction for the defendants’ failure to preserve trucking logs related to an accident between the plaintiff and a truck driver working for the defendant’s company, but did agree not to allow the defendants to prove the contents of the destroyed documents by other means or argue their contents in dispositive motions or at...Read the whole entry... [read post]
24 Apr 2016, 11:00 pm
Mar. 7, 2016), Oklahoma District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for emails that were not preserved during an email provider switch via an adverse inference instruction, but denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for deleting files and for wiping the computer of one of its employees. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 3:01 pm
Finding that the at-issue information should have been preserved, that reasonable steps were not taken to do so, that the information could not be restored or replaced, and that Defendant “acted with the intent to deprive the [Plaintiffs] of the information’s use in the litigation—the new standard for imposing an adverse inference—the court concluded that it would “presume that the lost information was unfavorable to [the defendant]. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 1:02 pm
” Accordingly, the court denied Defendants’ request for serious sanctions, including an adverse inference, and instead found that Plaintiff was responsible for Defendants’ attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions. [read post]
