SEKISUI vs. HART 12 Civ. 3479 06/10/13 MEMORANDUM DECISION S.D.N.Y.
Sekisui ADI acquired owned by Richard Hart (
As it happens Sekisui sues the Harts for Breach of Contract
Harts write a letter to the judge requesting, inter alia, an adverse inference because: Sekisui destroyed 's email Hart Hart
Citing Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135, 162 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002)) The court lays out the three part test: for adverse inference
(a) the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it; evidence
(b) the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind;” culpable yes, gross negligence maybe
RELEVA T N (c) the destroyed evidence was “relevant” to the moving party’s claim or defense. this is a problem here
...a court should never impose spoliation sanctions of any sort unless there has been a showing – inferential or otherwise – that the movant has suffered prejudice. See Orbit One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 271 F.R.D. 429, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) must show that lost information was minimally relevant of significance i.e. in other words Regarding Relevance:
Hart's email was deleted BUT Hart A YES some emails were printed before deletion
Bemails from other sources were collected Hart
Hart C A laptop used by was searched Hart
DDecommisioned laptops are being searched. A B C D=+ + + Harts [cannot] produce – or even describe – so much as a single relevant email that Sekisui has failed to produce. 36,000 emails Among all these emails
They have not shown... that relevant information potentially helpful to them is no longer available. No adverse inference instruction BUT, may renew motion later