SEKISUI vs. HART 12 Civ. 3479 08/15/13 OPINION AND ORDER S.D.N.Y. discovery dispute was referred to DELETED EMAILS
Magistrate Judge, who ordered: no sanction because no prejudice read it
Magistrate Judge, who ordered: no sanction because no prejudice REVERSED SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. by Prejudice does not matter in this case read it Magistrate Judge, who ordered: no sanction because no prejudice REVERSED SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. by Prejudice does not matter in this case read it
Magistrate Judge, who ordered: no sanction because no prejudice REVERSED SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. by Prejudice does not matter in this case read it
...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) Magistrate relied on Orbit One SCHEINDLIN: Orbit One does not control here. Because in that case there was no evidence that data had been destroyed, let alone destroyed willfully or through gross negligence.
These facts distinguish this case It was plaintiff who did the data destruction Plaintiff did not start preservation until three months after complaint
The magistrate found no willfulness because no showing of malevolent purpose. SCHEINDLIN: (The evidence) was willfully destroyed. This is contrary to law and clearly erroneous. A good faith explanation does not change the fact that the information was willfully destroyed. There is no analytical distinction between destroying evidence in bad faith and destroying it willfully.
Intentional destruction is enough to find that destroyed evidence was unfavorable. This is rebuttable.
SCHEINDLIN awards: Monetary sanction: Adverse jury instruction. The jury instruction will leave it to the jury to determine whether to draw a negative inference. Based on the egregiousness of plaintiff's conduct and their success of rebuttal. Costs and fees Sekisui remains free to argue that the Hart's were not prejudiced and the jury remains free to accept proof by a preponderance of the evidence.