By Doug Austin
In Cahill v. Dart, No. 13-cv-361 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2016), Illinois District Judge John Z. Lee adopted, with modifications, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cox regarding the plaintiff’s motion to sanction the defendants for destruction of evidence, indicating that Judge Cox’s proposed sanction would be imposed and also that the jury would be informed that the defendants failed to meet their duty to preserve video, giving the plaintiff the option to argue to the jury…
Related Stories
- Defendant Sanctioned for Spoliation of Physical Evidence, But Not ESI: eDiscovery Case Law
- With No Proof of Duty to Preserve or Bad Faith, Plaintiffs’ Request for Sanctions is Denied: eDiscovery Case Law
- Court Orders Defendant to Produce Additional ESI Responsive to 78 “Unopposed” Search Terms: eDiscovery Case Law
