Gerlich v. United States Department of Justice

How courts have described this case

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

• describing records as containing the employer’s “annotations highlighting reasons for ‘deselection’ and the accompanying internet printouts attached to support a particular ‘deselection’ decision”
• reversing summary judgment against federal job applicants without mentioning the CSRA or questioning jurisdiction
• “This court has recognized that a negative inference may be justified where the defendant has destroyed potentially relevant evidence.”
• “[A] negative inference [of spoliation] may be justified where the defendant has destroyed potentially relevant evidence.” (emphasis added)
• incorporation by reference of argument made in interlocutory appeal insufficient
• duty exists whenever “litigation is reasonably foreseeable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).