Source: https://www.employmentlawgroup.com/in-the-news/articles/grim-consequences-spoliation-evidence/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:14:20+00:00

Document:
On September 9, 2010, Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland decided a crucial motion in the four year long case of Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.
VSI’s expert also concluded that an external hard drive must have been connected to Pappas’s work computer after VSI filed their lawsuit. Pappas claimed he had returned the external hard drive to “Bob from Office Max” because he was “frustrated” by its automatic backup features that “would flash messages and interrupt [his] work.”14 Pappas was unable to produce a receipt or any other proof that the external hard drive was returned.
The contempt sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) may be civil or criminal. A drawback of issuing criminal contempt sanctions is that they require additional proceedings with enhanced due process procedures.
1 Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497 (D. Md. 2010).
3 Victor Stanley, Inc., 269 F.R.D at 500.
17 Id. at 517 (quoting United Med. Supply Co. v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 257, 263-64 (2007) (internal quotation omitted)).
18 Id. at 517 (quoting United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir. 1993)).
19 Id. at 517 (citing Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d at 462).
20 Id. at 518 (citing United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34 (1812)).
21 Id. at 518 (citing Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 (1980)).
22 Id. at 518 (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991) and Schaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d at 461-62).
26 Id. at 527 (citing Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001)).
28 Id. at 529 (citing Silvestri, 271 F.3d at 590).
31 Id. at 534 (citing Silvestri, 271 F.3d at 590).
37 Id. at 537 (quoting Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631-32 (1988)).
39 Id. at 538 (quoting Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000)).
41 Id. at 516 (citing, inter alia, Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238, 249 (4th Cir. 2003) (“Former counsel’s errors are attributable to [plaintiff] not because he participated in, ratified, or condoned their decisions, but because they were his agents, and their actions were attributable to him under standard principles of agency.”)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.