12 Cited authorities

Residential Funding Corp. v. Degeorge Financial
306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 872 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
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."
Beaven v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010) Cited 243 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he district court also did not abuse its discretion in holding that the folder was relevant--that the Plaintiffs had made 'some showing indicating that the destroyed evidence would have been relevant to the contested issue' of who may have accessed the folder . . . such that 'a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim'" " party seeking an adverse inference may rely on circumstantial evidence to suggest the contents of destroyed evidence."
Eplus Technology, Inc. v. Aboud
313 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2002) Cited 219 times
Holding that a district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper when the defendant-employee had sufficient contacts with the forum state, even when “those contacts were made ostensibly on behalf of [the corporation for which the defendant was an agent]”
LiButti v. U.S.
107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 233 times
Holding that government could place tax lien on assets of corporation to satisfy taxpayer's tax liability if government showed corporation to be taxpayer's alter ego
Turner v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc.
142 F.R.D. 68 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) Cited 233 times
Holding no adverse inference instruction was warranted where vehicle maintenance records were destroyed because, inter alia, "the plaintiff has offered no extrinsic evidence to corroborate the suggestion that the brakes were faulty"
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
Libutti v. U.S.
178 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 128 times
Holding that "a trial court should be most reluctant to set aside that which it has previously decided unless convinced that it was based on a mistake of fact or clear error of law, or that refusal to revisit the earlier decision would work a manifest injustice"
Doe v. Norwalk Community College
248 F.R.D. 372 (D. Conn. 2007) Cited 38 times
Holding that party was entitled to adverse inference due to opposing party's grossly negligent failure to preserve relevant evidence
Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc.
251 F.R.D. 82 (D. Conn. 2008) Cited 12 times
Awarding default where "orders compelling disclosure and imposing monetary sanctions have not worked" and "any adverse inference sufficient to sanction defendant[] . . . would effectively amount to a directed verdict or the equivalent of a default judgment"

Genworth Financial Wealth Mgmt Inc v. McMullan et al

12 Cited authorities

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

Holding that a district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction was proper when the defendant-employee had sufficient contacts with the forum state, even when “those contacts were made ostensibly on behalf of [the corporation for which the defendant was an agent]”

Holding that government could place tax lien on assets of corporation to satisfy taxpayer's tax liability if government showed corporation to be taxpayer's alter ego

Holding no adverse inference instruction was warranted where vehicle maintenance records were destroyed because, inter alia, "the plaintiff has offered no extrinsic evidence to corroborate the suggestion that the brakes were faulty"

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

Holding that "a trial court should be most reluctant to set aside that which it has previously decided unless convinced that it was based on a mistake of fact or clear error of law, or that refusal to revisit the earlier decision would work a manifest injustice"

Holding that party was entitled to adverse inference due to opposing party's grossly negligent failure to preserve relevant evidence

Awarding default where "orders compelling disclosure and imposing monetary sanctions have not worked" and "any adverse inference sufficient to sanction defendant[] . . . would effectively amount to a directed verdict or the equivalent of a default judgment"