Lorie Applebaum v. Target Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 37(e)(2) requires the plaintiff to show intent
• plaintiff offered no evidence some of the records existed, much less defendant destroyed them with a culpable state of mind
• “It bears adding that to the extent Applebaum sought an adverse inference instruction for spoliation of electronic information, a 2015 amendment to Civil Rule 37(e)(2
• “A showing of negligence or even gross negligence will not do the trick.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hoffer v. Tellone
  Second Circuit· 2025-02-13· cited 21×
• Culhane v. Wal-Mart Supercenter
  E.D. Michigan· 2019-01-10· cited 15×
• Jeff Kean v. Brinker Int'l, Inc.
  Sixth Circuit· 2025-06-17· cited 6×
• Kalejaiye v. Quality Investigations, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2024-03-21

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Palmer v. Hoffman
  Supreme Court· 1943-03-01· cited 1,191×
• Adkins v. Wolever
  Sixth Circuit· 2009-02-04· cited 196×
• Beaven v. United States Department of Justice
  Sixth Circuit· 2010-09-27· cited 174×
• United States v. Steven L. Baker
  Sixth Circuit· 2006-08-15· cited 87×
• Armisted v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
  Sixth Circuit· 2012-04-12· cited 53×