J. W. Butler Paper Co. v. Goembel

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that e-mails documenting that the plaintiff “threaten[ed] legal action,” which were sent around eleven months before the defendant issued its first litigation hold notices, suggested that a future lawsuit might occur
• stating that Rule 37 “provides that an adverse inference is warranted only when the court finds that a spoliating party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation.”
• granting a motion to compel production of litigation hold notices and document preservation instructions
• “[N]ew Rule 37(e)(2) applies by its own terms only to [ESI] . . . [and] would seem not to apply at all to more old-fashioned documentary evidence.”
• in context of spoliation allegations, attorney-client privilege did not attach to litigation hold notice sent in response to legal complaint lodged by employee and work product doctrine not implicated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).