Teeval, Inc. v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that, once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, failure to suspend routine document destruction constitutes negligence
• recognizing that rule requiring retention of all documents upon recognition of threat of litigation “would cripple large corporations”
• holding that employer’s duty to preserve back-up tapes of emails of certain supervisors and coworkers involved in alleged gender discrimination arose, at the latest, when employee filed her EEOC charge
• holding that destruction of evidence was “grossly negligent, if not reckless” where the defendant “failed to include [evidence from a key employee] in its preservation directive”
• stating that duty to preserve evidence does not require a party to retain multiple identical copies of a document
• finding that even though a defendant was “negligent, and possibly reckless,” in preserving relevant documents, defendant had not been intentionally or grossly negligent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).