Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that an adverse inference “cannot take the place of proof of a fact necessary to [a party’s] case”
• drawing an adverse inference where the defendant deleted information, replaced his hard drive, and failed to maintain the original despite receiving prior notice that the data could be discoverable
• calling for “early and, if necessary, frequent communications among counsel” regarding ESI
• “[D]rawing an adverse inference is appropriate when an actor is under a duty to preserve evidence and takes part in the destruction of evidence while being consciously aware of a risk that he or she will cause or allow evidence to be spoiled by action or inaction . . . .”
• “[D]rawing an adverse inference is appropriate when an actor is under a duty to preserve evidence and takes part in the destruction of evidence while being consciously aware of a risk that he or she will cause or allow evidence to be spoiled by action or inaction . . . .”
• “To obtain an adverse inference, however, a party must offer more than mere speculation and conjecture[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).