In re Tom's Villarosa, Inc.

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 failure to preserve backup tapes after December 2003 was sufficient to constitute gross negligence or recklessness
• holding that the plaintiff failed to establish relevance where he was “unable to demonstrate that any single document, or even any type of document, that was destroyed would have been favorable to him”
• finding adverse inference instruction inappropriate where “the only evidence that [the] [p]laintiff has adduced suggesting that the unproduced discovery would be unfavorable to [the] [d]efendants is the non- production itself” (citation, alteration, and quotation marks omitted)
• “[I]t is ... clear that [defendant] should have retained the monthly backup tapes of the relevant servers from the previous year, since these were quite likely to contain files that were later deleted”
• “[O]nce a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.”
• generalized assertions that missing evidence is relevant is insufficient to establish relevancy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).