in Re: Family Dollar Stores of Texas, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the fact that the defendant acted consistent with normal video-retention policies weighed against a finding of bad faith
• noting that Rule 37(e) was amended “to address the spoliation of electronically stored information like the [surveillance] video at issue here”
• upholding admission of collateral source evidence in part because district court had instructed the jury on the collateral source rule
• finding sufficient a court’s jury instruction “not to reduce any damages it might award on account of” a third party’s payments, since few “tenets are more fundamental to our jury system than the presumption that juries obey the court’s instructions” (quotation omitted)
• “[E]vidence of collateral benefits is inadmissible ‘if the only proposition for which it is offered is in reduction of damages, because it is then offered to help prove a proposition which is not a matter in issue.’” (citation omitted)
• admissibility and relevance of evidence pertinent to undue burden analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).