Christ v. Mark

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that party fell well short of its duty to preserve by failing to suspend its bi-weekly automatic email destruction policy, even as to key custodians
• recognizing 15 a widely adopted three-part test to determine whether spoliation sanctions are warranted
• finding that prejudice to the non-spoliating party was “not 21 particularly strong” where the spoliating party had produced documents and emails sent 22 to and from the Employees, and the non-spoliating party deposed key witnesses whose 1 emails were not preserved
• finding “strong adverse inference 7 instruction” was not warranted where prejudice to opposing party was minimal
• “[T]here is no question that the duty to preserve relevant evidence may arise even before litigation 24 is formally commenced.”
• “The Court need only find that [the spoliating party] acted with ‘conscious disregard’ of its obligations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).