Elliott v. Scoville's Assignee

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a non-party was not a disinterested party on the grounds that it 24 was “responsible for [d]efendants’ training and conduct, and it had complete control over the 25 relevant evidence.”
• finding that non-party Arizona 24 Department of Corrections was not a disinterested party and therefore “had a duty to preserve 25 evidence relevant to [the] case once it knew that litigation was reasonably likely.”
• addressing the imputation of spoliation sanctions against a party not responsible for the destruction of evidence
• noting “the duty to preserve evidence generally applies only to parties” absent a “special relationship” or duty mandating otherwise
• considering whether the missing evidence was 3 “relevant to the claims at issue in this case.”
• finding plaintiff to have been “clearly” prejudiced by loss of “objective evidence” that was “highly relevant to the claims at issue in [that] case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).