By Doug Austin
\r\n
Is this case is one example of Craig Ball’s contention that “you are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be sanctioned for non-preservation of ESI”? You decide.
\r\n
In Flanders v. Dzugan et. al., 12-1481 (W.D. Pa., August 24, 2015), despite the fact that the defendant failed to implement a litigation hold, Pennsylvania District Judge Nora Barry Fischer denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions alleging the defendants failed to preserve evidence relevant to the case, finding that…
Related Stories
- Court Denies Motion for Sanctions Against Veterinary Hospital for Spoliation of ESI: eDiscovery Case Law
- Defendant Gets Summary Judgment, Not Dismissal, Due to Plaintiff’s Wiping of Hard Drive: eDiscovery Case Law
- Court Rules that State Agency is Not Responsible for Emails Deleted via the Retention Policy of Another State Agency: eDiscovery Case Law
