{"favorites":{},"caseDigest":{"id":17908,"deleted":false,"created_at":"2013-06-24T17:43:15.060-06:00","updated_at":"2020-08-13T15:13:47.809-06:00","last_published_at":"2015-11-02T10:54:18.228-07:00","is_digested":true,"pdf":"einstein___boyd_v._357_llc20181205-7067-i4bet4.pdf","published_revision":{"id":36004,"name":"Einstein & Boyd v. 357 LLC","full_text":"

In a fraudulent misrepresentation action against a realty group, plaintiffs sought an adverse inference against defendants for spoilation in relation to deleted emails. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants actively concealed facts about a condominium they sold plaintiffs, and later deleted numerous emails related to the sale. Defendants claimed that they simply followed a company-wide deletion process. The court held that sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, were warranted because defendants failed to take necessary steps to avoid the destruction of evidence.

Plaintiffs purchased a Brooklyn condominium for $1.3 million dollars from defendants, a group of architects, contractors, and realtors. Soon after moving in the defendants discovered that the condominium seriously flooded each time it rained. In response, plaintiffs instituted this suit and sought discovery of emails related to their claim. When they noticed that defendants responses did not even include relevant emails exchanged between the parties, plaintiffs began to suspect that defendants were selectively editing their responses. Defendants claimed they were simply following company deletion practices, which required employees to delete their emails in order to stay below an allotted amount of storage space. The court disagreed with defendants and cited emails produced by both parties as evidence as proof of defendants’ selective deletion policies. For instance, plaintiffs attempted to visit the condominium to take measurements on a Tuesday. Their realtor, through an email, pushed back this appointment until Thursday under the guise of a scheduling conflict. He then informed his partners in a separate email that he delayed the appointment because of heavy rain. Defendants produced the first email but not the second, even though it was stored in at least four inboxes.

Relying on Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), the court granted plaintiffs motion for an adverse inference instruction and awarded attorney’s fees and costs in bringing the motion. The court held that, though companies may delete files in the ordinary course of business, they are under an obligation to preserve relevant information once an action is reasonably anticipated. The court then held that defendants’ breach of their obligation to issue a litigation hold was so extreme that it constituted at least gross negligence and sanctions were warranted.

","cite":"No. 604199/07","judge":"Ramos, Charles E.","decision_date":"2009-11-12T00:00:00.000-07:00","case_digest_id":17908,"published":true,"created_at":"2013-06-24T17:43:15.073-06:00","updated_at":"2017-04-25T21:54:02.027-06:00","judge_type":"New York Supreme Court Justice","court_id":2214,"key_case":false,"non_subscription":false,"internal_notes":null,"sign_off":null,"notes":"

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 FRD. 422 (SD NY 2004).

","google_scholar_link":"","opinion":{"url":null},"opinion_cache":null,"in_dropbox":false,"cached_tag_list":"Costs and Fees, Sanctions, Adverse inference, Spoliation","no_link_found":false,"autolinked_full_text":"

Plaintiffs purchased a Brooklyn condominium for $1.3 million dollars from defendants, a group of architects, contractors, and realtors. Soon after moving in the defendants discovered that the condominium seriously flooded each time it rained. In response, plaintiffs instituted this suit and sought discovery of emails related to their claim. When they noticed that defendants responses did not even include relevant emails exchanged between the parties, plaintiffs began to suspect that defendants were selectively editing their responses. Defendants claimed they were simply following company deletion practices, which required employees to delete their emails in order to stay below an allot ted amount of storage space. The court disagreed with defendants and cited emails produced by both parties as evidence as proof of defendants’ selective deletion policies. For instance, plaintiffs at tempted to visit the condominium to take measurements on a Tuesday. Their realtor, through an email, pushed back this appointment until Thursday under the guise of a scheduling conflict. He then informed his partners in a separate email that he delayed the appointment because of heavy rain. Defendants produced the first email but not the second, even though it was stored in at least four inboxes.

Relying on Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), the court granted plaintiffs motion for an adverse inference instruction and awarded at torney’s fees and costs in bringing the motion. The court held that, though companies may delete files in the ordinary course of business, they are under an obligation to preserve relevant information once an action is reasonably anticipated. The court then held that defendants’ breach of their obligation to issue a litigation hold was so extreme that it constituted at least gross negligence and sanctions were warranted.

","last_reviewed_on":null,"qc_complete":false,"linked_federal_rules":"","tag_overturn":false,"rule_overturn":false,"unpublished":null,"needs_update":null,"google_scholar_text":null,"full_text_verified":null,"google_scholar_text_type":null,"full_case_visibility":false,"modal_ready":false,"formatting_errors":false,"style_errors":null,"opinion_pdf_attached":false,"display_opinion_file":false,"court_display_name":null,"parsed_attributes":null,"full_name":null,"mdl":null,"parser_qc_complete":false,"parser_issue_type":null,"use_eda_format":false,"case_title":null,"docket_number":null,"counsel":null,"decision_title":null,"body_text":null,"additional_dates":[],"decision_date_label":"","has_tables":false,"has_table_of_contents":false,"disposition":null,"image_display_errors":false,"de_updated_at":null,"de_updated_by_id":null,"ready_for_review":false,"de_further_review":false,"appellate_case":false,"de_further_review_notes":null,"appellate_info":null,"tag_list":["Costs and Fees","Sanctions","Adverse inference","Spoliation"]},"state_rules":[],"federal_rules":[],"district_rules":[]},"scholarText":"

","relatedCases":[{"id":29931,"deleted":false,"created_at":"2020-09-15T14:46:47.503-06:00","updated_at":"2020-09-24T11:13:22.366-06:00","last_published_at":"2020-09-24T11:13:17.506-06:00","is_digested":false,"pdf":"bush_v._bowling20200924-4-11cwm7r.pdf","slug":"29931-bush-v-bowling","published_revision":{"id":86180,"name":"Bush v. Bowling","cite":"2020 WL 5423986 (N.D. Okla. 2020)","judge":"Frizzell, Gregory K.","decision_date":"2020-09-10T00:00:00.000-06:00","case_digest_id":29931,"published":true,"created_at":"2020-09-15T14:46:47.511-06:00","updated_at":"2020-09-24T11:13:17.227-06:00","judge_type":"United States District Judge","court_id":2250,"key_case":false,"non_subscription":false,"internal_notes":null,"sign_off":null,"notes":null,"google_scholar_link":null,"opinion":{"url":null},"opinion_cache":null,"in_dropbox":false,"cached_tag_list":"Video, Default Judgment, Custody or Control, Failure to Preserve, Adverse inference, Sanctions, Spoliation, Costs and Fees","no_link_found":false,"last_reviewed_on":null,"qc_complete":false,"linked_federal_rules":"Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 -- effective 12/1/15","tag_overturn":false,"rule_overturn":false,"unpublished":false,"needs_update":null,"full_text_verified":null,"google_scholar_text_type":"westlaw","full_case_visibility":null,"modal_ready":true,"formatting_errors":false,"style_errors":null,"opinion_pdf_attached":false,"display_opinion_file":false,"court_display_name":"United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma","parsed_attributes":null,"full_name":null,"mdl":null,"parser_qc_complete":false,"parser_issue_type":null,"use_eda_format":true,"case_title":"JANICE BUSH, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Ronald Garland, deceased, Plaintiff, v. BRET BOWLING, in his individual and official capacity and individual capacity as Sheriff of Creek County, Oklahoma, et al., Defendants","docket_number":"Case No. 19-CV-00098-GKF-FHM","counsel":"David Mitchell Garrett, Jr., Garrett Law, John Spencer Bryan, Steven James Terrill, yan & Terrill Law, PLLC, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff. Ambre Camille Gooch, Christopher James Collins, Michael Lee Carr, Collins Zorn & Wagner, Anthony Clayton Winter, Sean Patrick Snider, Johnson Hanan & Vosler, Charles Andrew Schreck, Randall J. Wood, Jessica Lauren Dark, Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green LLP, Elise McKenna Horne, James L. Gibbs, II, Goolsby Proctor Heffner & Gibbs, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants.","decision_title":"OPINION AND ORDER","additional_dates":[],"decision_date_label":"Filed","has_tables":false,"has_table_of_contents":false,"disposition":"Motion for Sanctions","image_display_errors":false,"de_updated_at":null,"de_updated_by_id":null,"ready_for_review":false,"de_further_review":false,"appellate_case":false,"de_further_review_notes":"","appellate_info":"","tag_list":["Video","Default Judgment","Custody or Control","Failure to Preserve","Adverse inference","Sanctions","Spoliation","Costs and Fees"]}},{"id":21960,"deleted":false,"created_at":"2018-03-09T13:31:12.000-07:00","updated_at":"2020-05-10T22:02:41.619-06:00","last_published_at":"2020-05-10T22:02:37.314-06:00","is_digested":false,"pdf":"brown_v._brookdale_hosp._med._ctr.20200511-4-3fj87h.pdf","slug":"21960-brown-v-brookdale-hosp-med-ctr","published_revision":{"id":79075,"name":"Brown v. Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr.","cite":"2010 WL 11591378 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)","judge":"Pitman, Henry","decision_date":"2010-07-19T00:00:00.000-06:00","case_digest_id":21960,"published":true,"created_at":"2020-05-10T22:01:35.518-06:00","updated_at":"2020-05-10T22:02:36.849-06:00","judge_type":"United States Magistrate Judge","court_id":2222,"key_case":false,"non_subscription":false,"internal_notes":null,"sign_off":null,"notes":"","google_scholar_link":"","opinion":{"url":null},"opinion_cache":null,"in_dropbox":false,"cached_tag_list":"Custody or Control, Exclusion of Pleading, Failure to Preserve, Adverse inference, Sanctions, Costs and Fees, Spoliation","no_link_found":true,"last_reviewed_on":null,"qc_complete":true,"linked_federal_rules":"Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 -- effective prior to 12/1/15","tag_overturn":false,"rule_overturn":false,"unpublished":false,"needs_update":null,"full_text_verified":true,"google_scholar_text_type":"westlaw","full_case_visibility":true,"modal_ready":true,"formatting_errors":false,"style_errors":false,"opinion_pdf_attached":false,"display_opinion_file":false,"court_display_name":"United States District Court, S.D. New York","parsed_attributes":null,"full_name":null,"mdl":null,"parser_qc_complete":false,"parser_issue_type":null,"use_eda_format":true,"case_title":"GEORGE W. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. THE BROOKDALE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, THE NEW FRANKLIN REHABILITATION & HEALTH CARE FACILITY LLC, FRANKLIN CENTER FOR REHABILITATION & NURSING, INC., FRANKLIN CENTER FOR REHABILITATION & NURSING, ISRAEL SHERMAN, WILLIAM DUKE, M.D., and THE NEW YORK HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF QUEENS, Defendants","docket_number":"08 Civ. 1093 (LMM)(HBP)","counsel":"","decision_title":"REPORT & RECOMMENDATION","additional_dates":[],"decision_date_label":"Filed","has_tables":false,"has_table_of_contents":false,"disposition":"","image_display_errors":false,"de_updated_at":"2020-04-21T06:21:35.000-06:00","de_updated_by_id":535,"ready_for_review":false,"de_further_review":false,"appellate_case":false,"de_further_review_notes":"","appellate_info":null,"tag_list":["Custody or Control","Exclusion of Pleading","Failure to Preserve","Adverse inference","Sanctions","Costs and Fees","Spoliation"]}},{"id":20038,"deleted":false,"created_at":"2017-01-23T11:35:07.555-07:00","updated_at":"2020-05-02T05:43:30.634-06:00","last_published_at":"2020-05-02T05:43:27.991-06:00","is_digested":false,"pdf":"edelson_v._cheung20200502-4-1qkk64z.pdf","slug":"20038-edelson-v-cheung","published_revision":{"id":75329,"name":"Edelson v. Cheung","cite":"2017 WL 150241 (D.N.J. 2017)","judge":"Dickson, Joseph A.","decision_date":"2017-01-12T00:00:00.000-07:00","case_digest_id":20038,"published":true,"created_at":"2020-05-02T05:41:41.744-06:00","updated_at":"2020-05-02T05:43:27.778-06:00","judge_type":"United States Magistrate Judge","court_id":2206,"key_case":false,"non_subscription":false,"internal_notes":null,"sign_off":null,"notes":"

","google_scholar_link":"","opinion":{"url":null},"opinion_cache":null,"in_dropbox":false,"cached_tag_list":"Special Master, Default Judgment, Failure to Preserve, Costs and Fees, Bad Faith, Spoliation, Adverse inference, Failure to Produce, Sanctions","no_link_found":true,"last_reviewed_on":"2017-01-23","qc_complete":true,"linked_federal_rules":"Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 -- effective 12/1/15","tag_overturn":false,"rule_overturn":false,"unpublished":false,"needs_update":null,"full_text_verified":true,"google_scholar_text_type":"westlaw","full_case_visibility":true,"modal_ready":true,"formatting_errors":false,"style_errors":null,"opinion_pdf_attached":false,"display_opinion_file":false,"court_display_name":"","parsed_attributes":null,"full_name":null,"mdl":null,"parser_qc_complete":false,"parser_issue_type":null,"use_eda_format":true,"case_title":"Leonard Edelson, Plaintiff, v. Stephen Cheung, Defendant","docket_number":"Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-5870 (JLL) (JAD)","counsel":"Marc D'Angiolillo, Morristown, NJ, for Plaintiff. Bruce Lawrence Atkins, Deutsch & Atkins PC, Hackensack, NJ, for Defendant. Stephen Cheung, Bayside, NY, pro se.","decision_title":"OPINION","additional_dates":[],"decision_date_label":"Signed","has_tables":false,"has_table_of_contents":false,"disposition":"","image_display_errors":false,"de_updated_at":"2020-04-14T23:02:31.000-06:00","de_updated_by_id":529,"ready_for_review":false,"de_further_review":false,"appellate_case":false,"de_further_review_notes":"","appellate_info":null,"tag_list":["Special Master","Default Judgment","Failure to Preserve","Costs and Fees","Bad Faith","Spoliation","Adverse inference","Failure to Produce","Sanctions"]}},{"id":26090,"deleted":false,"created_at":"2019-12-18T14:03:11.137-07:00","updated_at":"2020-01-29T12:03:14.174-07:00","last_published_at":"2020-01-29T12:03:06.819-07:00","is_digested":false,"pdf":"ctc_global_corp._v._huang20200129-4-52aadi.pdf","slug":"26090-ctc-global-corp-v-huang","published_revision":{"id":68981,"name":"CTC Global Corp. v. Huang","cite":"2019 WL 6357271 (C.D. Cal. 2019)","judge":"Guilford, Andrew J.","decision_date":"2019-07-03T00:00:00.000-06:00","case_digest_id":26090,"published":true,"created_at":"2019-12-18T14:03:11.146-07:00","updated_at":"2020-01-29T12:03:06.491-07:00","judge_type":"United States District Judge","court_id":2102,"key_case":false,"non_subscription":false,"internal_notes":null,"sign_off":null,"notes":null,"google_scholar_link":null,"opinion":{"url":null},"opinion_cache":null,"in_dropbox":false,"cached_tag_list":"Adverse inference, Instant Messaging, Default Judgment, Social Media, Sanctions, Spoliation, Failure to Preserve, Mobile Device, Bad Faith, Costs and Fees","no_link_found":false,"last_reviewed_on":null,"qc_complete":false,"linked_federal_rules":"Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 -- effective 12/1/15","tag_overturn":false,"rule_overturn":false,"unpublished":false,"needs_update":null,"full_text_verified":null,"google_scholar_text_type":"westlaw","full_case_visibility":null,"modal_ready":true,"formatting_errors":false,"style_errors":null,"opinion_pdf_attached":false,"display_opinion_file":false,"court_display_name":"United States District Court, C.D. California","parsed_attributes":null,"full_name":null,"mdl":null,"parser_qc_complete":false,"parser_issue_type":null,"use_eda_format":true,"case_title":"CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION v. JASON HUANG ET AL","docket_number":"Case No. SACV 17-02202 AG (KESx)","counsel":"Melissa Kunig, Deputy Clerk, Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present, Court Reporter / Recorder, Tape No. Attorneys Present for Defendants:","decision_title":"Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REGARDING CTC'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DKT. 168) AND STATEMENT OF FEES (DKT. 212)","additional_dates":[],"decision_date_label":"Filed","has_tables":false,"has_table_of_contents":false,"disposition":"Motion for Default Judgment","image_display_errors":false,"de_updated_at":null,"de_updated_by_id":null,"ready_for_review":false,"de_further_review":false,"appellate_case":false,"de_further_review_notes":null,"appellate_info":null,"tag_list":["Adverse inference","Instant Messaging","Default Judgment","Social Media","Sanctions","Spoliation","Failure to Preserve","Mobile Device","Bad Faith","Costs and Fees"]}},{"id":26096,"deleted":false,"created_at":"2019-12-18T14:51:47.550-07:00","updated_at":"2020-01-29T11:35:10.061-07:00","last_published_at":"2020-01-29T11:35:07.000-07:00","is_digested":false,"pdf":"henderson_v._western_express20200129-4-10yw5ul.pdf","slug":"26096-henderson-v-western-express","published_revision":{"id":68987,"name":"Henderson v. Western Express","cite":"2007 WL 9782989 (M.D. Tenn. 2007)","judge":"Griffin, Juliet","decision_date":"2007-07-30T00:00:00.000-06:00","case_digest_id":26096,"published":true,"created_at":"2019-12-18T14:51:47.648-07:00","updated_at":"2020-01-29T11:35:06.727-07:00","judge_type":"United States Magistrate Judge","court_id":2288,"key_case":false,"non_subscription":false,"internal_notes":null,"sign_off":null,"notes":null,"google_scholar_link":null,"opinion":{"url":null},"opinion_cache":null,"in_dropbox":false,"cached_tag_list":"Adverse inference, Failure to Produce, Spoliation, Costs and Fees, Sanctions, Failure to Preserve","no_link_found":false,"last_reviewed_on":null,"qc_complete":false,"linked_federal_rules":"Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 -- effective prior to 12/1/15","tag_overturn":false,"rule_overturn":false,"unpublished":false,"needs_update":null,"full_text_verified":null,"google_scholar_text_type":"westlaw","full_case_visibility":null,"modal_ready":true,"formatting_errors":false,"style_errors":null,"opinion_pdf_attached":false,"display_opinion_file":false,"court_display_name":"United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division","parsed_attributes":null,"full_name":null,"mdl":null,"parser_qc_complete":false,"parser_issue_type":null,"use_eda_format":true,"case_title":"DAVID HENDERSON v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC","docket_number":"No. 3-06-0840","counsel":"Charles A. Mayfield, Jr., Mayfield Law Firm, LLC, Nashville, TN, for David Henderson. Mark A. Baugh, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Roland M. Lowell, Western Express, Inc., Nashville, TN, for Western Express, Inc.","decision_title":"ORDER","additional_dates":[],"decision_date_label":"Filed","has_tables":false,"has_table_of_contents":false,"disposition":"Motion for Sanctions","image_display_errors":false,"de_updated_at":null,"de_updated_by_id":null,"ready_for_review":false,"de_further_review":false,"appellate_case":false,"de_further_review_notes":null,"appellate_info":null,"tag_list":["Adverse inference","Failure to Produce","Spoliation","Costs and Fees","Sanctions","Failure to Preserve"]}}],"additionalFilings":[],"currentUser":null,"isAdmin":false}