Surowiec v. Capital Title Agency, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding Defendants were grossly negligent for failing to preserve evidence 21 after a letter from Plaintiffs “clearly placed [Defendants] on notice that litigation was likely.”
• stating 12| “[iJt is well established in this circuit that courts will not consider new arguments raised 13 | for the first time in a reply brief”
• finding a culpable state of mind where the party “completely] fail[ed] to suspend its ongoing destruction of emails and to capture the evidence on Mr. Romley’s computer” for at least four months after it reasonably anticipated litigation
• “It is well established in this 27 circuit that courts will not consider new arguments raised for the first time in a reply 28 brief.”
• “[T]he duty to preserve arises when 4 a party knows or should know that certain evidence is relevant to pending or future 5 litigation.”
• “It is well established in this circuit that courts will not consider 28 new arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).