Leidig v. BuzzFeed, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 542 (VM) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2017). In this defamation case, the court ordered evidentiary sanctions to address the prejudice caused by the plaintiffs’ negligent preservation efforts. This matter began in April 2015 when the...
White v. United States, No. 4:15CV1252 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jan. 9, 2018). In this wrongful death case, the plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions against the U.S. government for destroying video evidence. The court denied the motion without prejudice, holding that the...
Youngevity Int’l Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-cv-704-BTM-JLB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200048 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017). In this case alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff requested sanctions for the defendants’ deletion of...
Barcroft Media, Ltd. v. Coed Media Grp., LLC, No. 16-CV-7634 (JMF), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164162 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2017). The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions where the evidence in question had not been “lost” during ediscovery. The court...
Eshelman v. Puma Biotech, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-18-D, 2017 WL 2483800 (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017). In this defamation case, the court denied a jury instruction for spoliation where the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant could not replace information it lost. The...
In Sec. Alarm Fin. Enters., L.P. v. Alarm Protection Tech., limited sanctions were appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(1) where a party engaged in selective preservation..
In a breach of contract matter, the court refused to impose severe spoliation sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 where a party requesting sanctions did not demonstrate prejudice because the lost files were generally irrelevant or available from other sources.
In this copyright infringement case, the court found the plaintiff had intentionally spoliated evidence. The court allowed the defendant to address the spoliation in its opening statement and instructed the jury that it could consider the loss of evidence in its deliberations. Despite these sanctions, the jury awarded the plaintiff $25 million after finding that the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s copyrighted music. In a motion for a new trial, the defendant argued that the sanctions were “anemic,” among other things. The district judge denied the defendant’s motion and entered final judgment for the plaintiff, finding the lesser sanctions sufficient to cure the prejudice; anything more would have been tantamount to dismissal.
Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., No. 15-cv-02287-BAS (NLS), 2016 WL 5110453 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016). The court denied sanctions against a party where the huge majority of the files he deleted were not actually destroyed, as they were mostly still located in the...
Atiles v. Golub Corp., No. 521828 (N.Y. App. July 28, 2016). The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s denial of an adverse inference instruction where the plaintiff did not establish that the additional video evidence she sought was “relevant to [her] claim.”...