Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Destroying Evidence?
This may come as a surprise, but neither the California Civil Discovery Act nor any case law interpreting the same specifically prohibits the intentional destruction of evidence prior to a lawsuit being filed ' regardless of whether such litigation is being contemplated or even probable.
There is even authority in California suggesting that even after a lawsuit is filed, a duty to preserve evidence is not triggered until the party is served with discovery demands. For example, in New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1430-1431, the Court of Appeal rejected sanctions for spoliation because it read the California Civil Discovery Act as authorizing sanctions only “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or provision of this title,” and no discovery method authorized by the Civil Discovery Act addresses the possibility of spoliation prior to service of a discovery demand.
By comparison, federal courts recognize that a duty to preserve evidence arises when a party reasonably anticipates litigation, and most certainly when a party is contemplating filing a lawsuit. As explained in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the seminal case on the duty to preserve evidence and spoliation, “once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents.” This applies equally to both prospective plaintiffs and defendants in a federal lawsuit. However, in the case of would-be plaintiffs, the duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence is triggered at an earlier point, given that plaintiffs dictate when litigation actually begins and, as such, are able to anticipate litigation before the lawsuit is even filed.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.