10 Cited authorities

Luce v. United States
469 U.S. 38 (1984) Cited 3,628 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant failed to preserve an issue for appeal where the trial court ruled that he could be impeached with a prior conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 609 and he thereafter declined to testify
Fujitsu Ltd. v. Federal Exp. Corp.
247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 983 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that conclusory allegations cannot defeat summary judgment
Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 629 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to instigate a litigation hold is only one factor in determining whether to issue sanctions
Residential Funding Corp. v. Degeorge Financial
306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 873 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding evidence of bad faith or gross negligence that satisfies the culpable-state-of-mind requirement is also usually sufficient to satisfy the relevance requirement
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC
220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 697 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that destruction of evidence was "grossly negligent, if not reckless" where the defendant "failed to include [evidence from a key employee] in its preservation directive"
Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC
685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 225 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that a rebuttable presumption arose that prejudice resulted when documents were lost due to failure to institute a litigation hold
Curcio v. Roosevelt Union Free School Dist.
283 F.R.D. 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) Cited 27 times
Finding the unexplained loss of a notebook to be negligent
Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Fed. R. Evid. 403 Cited 22,522 times 81 Legal Analyses
Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,395 times 34 Legal Analyses
Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
Section 626 - Recordkeeping, investigation, and enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 626 Cited 6,053 times 44 Legal Analyses
Adopting the statute of limitations under the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 255

Bagley v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

10 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant failed to preserve an issue for appeal where the trial court ruled that he could be impeached with a prior conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 609 and he thereafter declined to testify

Holding that conclusory allegations cannot defeat summary judgment

Holding that the failure to instigate a litigation hold is only one factor in determining whether to issue sanctions

Holding evidence of bad faith or gross negligence that satisfies the culpable-state-of-mind requirement is also usually sufficient to satisfy the relevance requirement

Holding that destruction of evidence was "grossly negligent, if not reckless" where the defendant "failed to include [evidence from a key employee] in its preservation directive"

Holding that a rebuttable presumption arose that prejudice resulted when documents were lost due to failure to institute a litigation hold

Finding the unexplained loss of a notebook to be negligent

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Adopting the statute of limitations under the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 255