Haseotes v. Abacab International Computers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that records destroyed pursuant to a document retention policy evidenced negligence rather than bad faith intent, but, because destruction occurred after litigation had commenced, sanctions were warranted
• holding that “an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees, is entirely warranted” where defendant “unjustifiably destroyed documents after litigation had been commenced, causing the plaintiff to expend time and effort in attempting to track down the relevant information”
• concluding that, to restore the evidentiary balance, an adverse inference should arise even when the spoliation was merely negligent, because the prejudice to the other party is the same, regardless of the despoiler’s intent
• finding that defendant had a clear obligation, no matter its document retention policy, to put a litigation hold on any and all documents relating to claim
• finding that “[c]ompensable costs” typically arise “from the discovery necessary to identify 4 See e.g., Dorchester Fin. Holdings Corp. v. Banco BRJ S.A., 304 F.R.D. 178, 185 (S.D.N.Y. 2014
• holding no adverse inference instruction was warranted where vehicle maintenance records were destroyed because, inter alia, “the plaintiff has offered no extrinsic evidence to corroborate the suggestion that the brakes were faulty”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).