Thomas Bros. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendants should have preserved e-mail records of former employees who qualified as “key players”
• holding a party’s failure to request the preservation of documents “does not vitiate the independent obligation of an adverse party to preserve such information”
• noting the court can shift burdensome or expensive ESI costs, in whole or in part, under Rules 26(b) and 26(c)
• employing different three-factor test to determine if adverse inference instruction for spoliation was appropriate
• district judge in bench trial allowed to draw inference from failure to preserve and produce emails
• “Rule 37(b)(2) provides a non-exclusive list of possible sanctions[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).