Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 628 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that the failure to instigate a litigation hold is only one factor in determining whether to issue sanctions
Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.
13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 457 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that showing evidence had been destroyed "permitted an inference, the 'spoliation inference,' that the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to the position of the offending party."
In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation
462 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 280 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that even if the defendant was only "grossly negligent in executing its duties to preserve evidence [] by failing to implement a litigation hold," this satisfied the state of mind requirement for a finding of spoliation
Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp.
254 F.R.D. 559 (N.D. Cal. 2008) Cited 31 times254 F.R.D. 559 (N.D.Cal. 2008) NURSING HOME PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. C 01-00988 SI. United States District Court, N.D. California. September 2, 2008 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for sanctions as well as a motion for partial summary judgment. Argument on the matters
Hamilton v. Signature Flight Support Corp.
No. C 05-0490 CW (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005) Cited 31 timesHolding that the test for prejudice "is whether there is a reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence, that access to the evidence which was destroyed or altered, and which was not otherwise obtainable, would produce evidence favorable to the objecting party"