§Why CasetextPricing

WorldPak International LLC v. Diablo Valley Packaging Inc

MOTION Spoliation

12 Cited authorities

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

    501 U.S. 32 (1991)   Cited 9,208 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

  2. 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."

  3. Silvestri v. General Motors Corp.

    271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 630 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding sanctions for spoliation appropriate only to curb abuses of the judicial process

  4. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.

    269 F.R.D. 497 (D. Md. 2010)   Cited 293 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[i]n the Fourth Circuit, for a court to impose some form of sanctions for spoliation, any fault - be it bad faith, willfulness, gross negligence or ordinary negligence - is a sufficiently culpable mindset" and noting that "[u]nder existing case law, the nuanced, fact-specific differences among these states of mind become significant in determining what sanctions are appropriate"

  5. Goodman v. Praxair Services, Inc.

    632 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. Md. 2009)   Cited 251 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when the defendant company prevented the plaintiff from obtaining a bonus—allegedly in violation of their contract—it did not trigger the duty to preserve because, though "these actions [gave] rise to the dispute that underlies the litigation," that the plaintiff had "real questions" about the defendant's ability to perform the contract did not alone make litigation reasonably foreseeable

  6. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc.

    2 F.3d 1397 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 194 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 11 sanctions did not apply to the violation of a discovery order

  7. Klein v. Stahl GMBH & Co. Maschinefabrik

    185 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 104 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting Chambers to mean "that the Rules are not 'up to the task' when they would not provide a district court with the authority to sanction all of the conduct deserving of sanction"

  8. Chan v. Triple 8 Palace, Inc.

    03 Civ. 6048 (GEL) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2005)   Cited 55 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting sanctions upon finding in a Fair Labor Standards Act action based on defendant's admitted destruction of money receipt book and tip distribution sheets as relevant evidence

  9. 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

  10. Southeastern Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Brody

    657 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2009)   Cited 32 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "wiping" of laptops and Blackberries led to spoliation of evidence

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 45,912 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness