Legal Field: Civil LitigationFocus Area: Litigation Holds

Case: Stinson v. City of New York, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 868(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2016).

FACTS:

Stinsoninvolved a request for sanctions against a defendant for spoliation caused by defendants’ allegedly negligent preservation efforts. Plaintiffs requested an Adverse Inference Sanction which was granted. However, the court determined that the proof provided by Plaintiffs only established gross negligence and not bad faith on the part of the defendants. Thus, the judge in this case chose to issue a less severe jury instruction than the one originally requested by Plaintiffs and instead instructed the jury only that theymay, at their discretion, infer that the lost data would be been helpful in deciding the issue at hand.

The case was decided in 2016 under the old version of FRCP 37(e).

QUESTIONS:
Using the case referenced above, as well as both versions of FRCP 37(e), please answer the following questions:
1) Explain how the court applied the elements of the then-existing FRCP 37(e) to the facts of this case.
2) Review the amended version of the Rule. Would the court have arrived at the same conclusion if the amended Rule would have applied? Support your answer.
3) Would the court have given the same jury instructionsusing the identical factsunder the new Rule? Support your answer.