Hirsch v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, as a prerequisite to drawing an adverse inference instruction, there must be a showing that the destruction of evidence was intentional
• holding that, as a prerequisite to drawing an adverse inference instruction, there must be a showing that the destruction of evidence was intentional
• holding “[t]he scope of the duty to preserve evidence is not boundless. A ‘potential spoliator need do only what is reasonable under the circumstances.’ ” (citation omitted)
• explaining that it is reasonable to impose a deadline for inspecting the evidence and to insist that the other party bear the expense of preserving the evidence if it is needed beyond that deadline
• noting that the goal of “protect[ing] a litigant’s interest [through] a prospective cause of action” does not apply when spoliation interferes with a party’s ability to defend against a lawsuit
• noting that the goal of “protect[ing] a litigant's interest [through] a prospective cause of action” does not apply when spoliation interferes with a party's ability to defend against a lawsuit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).