Koss v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to impose spoliation sanctions where movant did not show that evidence was within opposing party’s control
• noting both a party and its counsel are responsible for ensuring litigation holds are implemented and 16 The Court already sanctioned Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel under Rule 30(d)(2) for Plaintiff’s counsel’s obstructive behavior during the October 30, 2018 Saadia deposition. (ECF 333
• “Costs, including attorney’s fees are appropriate when a defendant has unjustifiably destroyed evidence that it was under a duty to preserve, ‘causing the plaintiff to expend time and effort in attempting to track down the relevant information’”
• “Costs, including attorney's fees are appropriate when a defendant has unjustifiably destroyed evidence that it was under a duty to preserve, ‘causing the plaintiff to expend time and effort in attempting to track down the relevant information’ ”
• “The duty to preserve evidence is an ongoing duty. Thus, the party—and its counsel—must monitor the party’s compliance with the litigation hold, ensuring that all relevant actors understand the policy and are implementing it faithfully.” (internal citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).