Color Technique, Inc. v. Don Wallace, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that Pfizer’s duty to preserve extended back to earlier, unrelated litigations
• discussing Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920–21 (10th Cir. 1992) and explain that, “[i]n general, before imposing severe sanctions such as striking a parties’ answer or dismissing a case, courts should consider the Ehrenhaus factors.”
• “It is difficult for the Court to imagine how a party could ever dispose of information under such a broad [shifting] duty because of the potential for some distantly related litigation that may arise years into the future.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).