People v. Newsom

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that we review a denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion and will not reverse absent a “miscarriage of justice”
• observing that plaintiff “would undoubtedly have benefited from producing actual documents and examining their contents at a trial . . . rather than providing third-party testimony as to their once-existence”
• observing that plaintiff “would undoubtedly have benefited from producing actual documents and examining their contents at a trial . . . rather than providing third-party testimony as to their once-existence”
• affirming district court’s adverse-inference instruction where one party intentionally destroyed materials to suppress truth and the destruction prejudiced the opposing party
• explaining bad faith existed when plaintiff “would undoubtedly have benefitted from producing actual documents and examining their contents,” but the defendant deleted a number of documents related to the lawsuit just hours before the scheduled computer inspection
• “[A] district court is entitled to fashion appropriate sanctions for such evasive litigation tactics—even absent an explicit bad faith finding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).