Linked – “Troubling” Activity with No Proof of Spoliation Insufficient to Warrant Sanctions
As a non-lawyer myself, I’m thinking this would be a pretty difficult thing to prove. The bar being set this high makes some sense to me, but it does leave quite a lot of wiggle room for people who don’t want to handle eDiscovery properly. Any actual lawyers want to weigh in on that?
Taking up the motion, the court laid out the relevant legal standards, including that “[a] party seeking spoliation sanctions must prove that (1) the missing evidence existed at one time; (2) the defendant had a duty to preserve the evidence; and (3) the evidence was crucial to the plaintiff’s prima facie case.”
“Troubling” Activity with No Proof of Spoliation Insufficient to Warrant Sanctions
Follow these topics: Links, LitigationSupport
