Cincinnati Ry. Supply Co. v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the duty to preserve started when the plaintiff had made explicit references to legal action and retained the attorney who represented her in the current lawsuit
• refusing to dismiss case even after a party destroyed unfavorable evidence by deleting emails because \dismissal [was] not commensurate with the harm implicated\
• noting broad duty to preserve evidence that the producing party “knew or reasonably could foresee would be relevant to the action” (quoting Scruggs v. Miller, No. 3:16- CV-050 JD, 2016 WL 495603, at (N.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2016))
• granting Guaranteed Rate, Inc. (“GRI”) full access to ex-employee’s private email account where the parties had a non-compete clause and the employee’s email account contained emails with competitors regarding potential employment with them while she was still employed at GRI

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).