George v. Lewis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the employee was not acting within the scope of his 6 authority when he destroyed the thumb drive
• discussing that certain sanctions, such as default, are imposed by the court rather than the jury
• stating that “defendants each had a duty to preserve the data beginning no later than those dates” on which plaintiff served the complaint on each defendant
• spoliation did not support the “extreme sanction of default judgment” where plaintiff still had “considerable evidence” to prove its claim
• agent’s willful alteration or destruction of 26 relevant data on laptop was directly attributable to defendant
• “[A] party has a duty to preserve evidence during litigation . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).