§Why CasetextPricing

Pegasus Aviation I, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Varig Logistica S.A., Defendant, MatlinPatterson Global Advisers, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Brief

73 Cited authorities

  1. Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

    685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 654 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence related to a time-barred claim can be used as "background evidence" to "assess liability on timely alleged act"

  2. Residential Funding Corp. v. Degeorge Financial

    306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 902 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

  3. Kronisch v. U.S.

    150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 872 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff's "circumstantial evidence" was sufficient to "entitle him to proceed to trial."

  4. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC

    220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 718 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"

  5. Aramburu v. the Boeing Company

    112 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir. 1997)   Cited 797 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he adverse inference must be predicated on the bad faith of the party destroying the records"

  6. Condrey v. Suntrust Bank of Georgia

    431 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2005)   Cited 398 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment where nonmovant presented no evidence of bad faith

  7. Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates

    94 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 412 times
    Holding that the "Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in holding that [a doctor's] affidavit — on which defendants' request was based — was insufficient to justify compelling plaintiff-mother to take an IQ test"

  8. Talavera v. Shah

    638 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 286 times
    Holding the District Court erred in finding the plaintiff was entitled only to a “weak adverse inference” of spoliation in light of the defendant's negligent destruction of evidence relevant to the issue of pretext

  9. Bracey v. Grondin

    712 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2013)   Cited 230 times
    Finding excessive force and spoliation claims were not too legally complex for pro se litigant

  10. VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.

    93 A.D.3d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 222 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding that destroyed records were relevant when they were from a “vital time period” in relationship to a breach of contract dispute

  11. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 48,125 times   336 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness