34 Cited authorities

Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ
243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 1,135 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the same standard applies to claims of discrimination based upon gender and age
Morris v. Dept. of Taxation
82 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 1,417 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury."
Residential Funding Corp. v. Degeorge Financial
306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 871 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
Kronisch v. U.S.
150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 857 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's "circumstantial evidence" was sufficient to "entitle him to proceed to trial."
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC
220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 696 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
VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.
93 A.D.3d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 206 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
Ortega v. New York
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7741 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 211 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that that existing remedies available to courts for discovery violations—e.g., "precluding proof favorable to the spoliator . . . , requiring the spoliator to pay costs . . . employing an adverse inference instruction at the trial . . . . [w]here appropriate, . . . dismissing the action or striking responsive pleadings, thereby rendering a judgment by default against the offending party"—are an adequate deterrence
In re NTL, Inc. Securities Litigation
244 F.R.D. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 136 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that movant was not required to submit extrinsic proof of relevance where movant had established gross negligence
Strong v. City of N.Y.
112 A.D.3d 15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) Cited 75 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Strong, the plaintiff demonstrated that the City had negligently failed to take active steps to halt the process of automatically deleting audio recordings, despite having notice of impending litigation for which a specific audio recording would be relevant (id.).

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

34 Cited authorities

Holding that the same standard applies to claims of discrimination based upon gender and age

Holding that "piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury."

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 plaintiff's "circumstantial evidence" was sufficient to "entitle him to proceed to trial."

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 that destroyed records were relevant when they were from a “vital time period” in relationship to a breach of contract dispute

Holding that movant was not required to submit extrinsic proof of relevance where movant had established gross negligence

In Strong, the plaintiff demonstrated that the City had negligently failed to take active steps to halt the process of automatically deleting audio recordings, despite having notice of impending litigation for which a specific audio recording would be relevant (id.).