10 Cited authorities

Leon v. IDX Systems Corp.
464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 769 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs Sarbanes-Oxley claim and Title VII retaliation claims involved the same nucleus of operative facts, including the time, cause, and circumstances of plaintiffs termination
West v. the Goodyear Tire Rubber Company
167 F.3d 776 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 699 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "because dismissal is a drastic remedy, it should be imposed only in extreme circumstances, usually after consideration of alternative, less drastic sanctions."
Silvestri v. General Motors Corp.
271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 628 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding sanctions for spoliation appropriate only to curb abuses of the judicial process
In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation
462 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 280 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding 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
Glover v. Bic Corp.
6 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 346 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[a]lthough an adequate warning will prevent the reliance on a theory of strict liability in a failure to warn defect case, such a warning will not make safe a product with a manufacturing defect"
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
888 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 179 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that adverse inference instruction sanction does not "'have an effect similar to those motions considered dispositive'" (quoting Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990))
Akiona v. U.S.
938 F.2d 158 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 211 times
Finding that the district court erred in sanctioning a party for spoliation because there was no evidence that the party destroyed the evidence "with the intent of covering up information"
Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 88 times 3 Legal Analyses
Affirming denial of JMOL of lack of written description
National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage
115 F.R.D. 543 (N.D. Cal. 1987) Cited 160 times
Holding that where "the relevance and resulting prejudice from destruction of documents cannot be clearly ascertained because the documents no longer exist...the culpable party can hardly assert any presumption of irrelevance as to the destroyed documents"
Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
591 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 36 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that litigation became "probable" when counsel was selected

Fleming v. Escort, Inc. et al

10 Cited authorities

Holding that plaintiffs Sarbanes-Oxley claim and Title VII retaliation claims involved the same nucleus of operative facts, including the time, cause, and circumstances of plaintiffs termination

Holding that "because dismissal is a drastic remedy, it should be imposed only in extreme circumstances, usually after consideration of alternative, less drastic sanctions."

Holding sanctions for spoliation appropriate only to curb abuses of the judicial process

Holding 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

Holding that "[a]lthough an adequate warning will prevent the reliance on a theory of strict liability in a failure to warn defect case, such a warning will not make safe a product with a manufacturing defect"

Holding that adverse inference instruction sanction does not "'have an effect similar to those motions considered dispositive'" (quoting Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990))

Finding that the district court erred in sanctioning a party for spoliation because there was no evidence that the party destroyed the evidence "with the intent of covering up information"

Affirming denial of JMOL of lack of written description

Holding that where "the relevance and resulting prejudice from destruction of documents cannot be clearly ascertained because the documents no longer exist...the culpable party can hardly assert any presumption of irrelevance as to the destroyed documents"

Finding that litigation became "probable" when counsel was selected