Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintifflitigationsubpoenadiscoverymotion

lawsuitplaintifflitigationmotion

Related Cases

In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 462 F.Supp.2d 1060

Facts

Hummer Winblad invested in Napster in May 2000, during which several lawsuits were pending against Napster. Following a subpoena for communications regarding Napster, Hummer sent an email instructing employees to delete emails related to Napster. Despite being warned of potential litigation by the recording industry, Hummer allegedly deleted relevant emails and failed to produce sufficient documentation during discovery, leading to the plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.

Hummer Winblad invested in Napster in May 2000, during which several lawsuits were pending against Napster.

Issue

Did Hummer Winblad have a duty to preserve emails related to Napster, and what sanctions are appropriate for their alleged spoliation of evidence?

Rule

A party has a duty to preserve evidence when it knows or should know that the evidence is relevant to litigation. Courts may impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions and monetary sanctions.

A party has a duty to preserve evidence when it knows or should know that the evidence is relevant to litigation.

Analysis

The court found that Hummer had a duty to preserve emails related to Napster starting in May 2000, as they were aware of ongoing litigation. Hummer's failure to cease its email deletion policy after this duty attached constituted spoliation. The court determined that while a default sanction was not warranted, evidentiary sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction, were appropriate due to Hummer's actions.

The court found that Hummer had a duty to preserve emails related to Napster starting in May 2000, as they were aware of ongoing litigation.

Conclusion

The court denied the motion for default sanctions but granted evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Hummer Winblad for their failure to preserve relevant emails.

Who won?

Plaintiffs UMG and EMI prevailed in part, as the court recognized Hummer's failure to preserve evidence and imposed sanctions.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Trone v. Smith, 621 F.2d 994, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,557

Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal.App.4th 930, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5507, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6551, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7523, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931

United States ex rel. Emerson Park v. Legacy Heart Care, LLC, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2019 WL 4450371, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 306,613

Baylson v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 764 F.Supp. 328, 59 USLW 2742

Zazzali v. Eide Bailly LLP, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 6045978