In Stevens v.
Belhaven University, the Fifth Circuit described a set of
findings that justified a $500 sanctions award on a client and $100 on a lawyer
(adding numbers and headings for ease of reference):
(1. Preservation letter)
The court explained that counsel had received a letter demanding
him to “preserve and sequester” the phone.
(2. Failure to preserve)
The defendant “was therefore sur-prised to learn . . . that the
phone had broken and was no longer in [plaintiff’s] possession [but] had been
taken . . . to a local AT&T store [where] she pur-chased a new phone.”
(3. Lack of explanation)
“In her deposition, [plaintiff] could not explain how some of the
text messages were deleted from her phone before they were shared with the
EEOC.”
(4. Actual relevance of material
at issue.) “When [she] did search her iCloud,
moreover―. . . she identified new, material, and important evidence.
(5. In addition to
(3), inconsistent explanation.) That . .
. directly contradicts [her] ear-lier sworn statement that she had produced
everything to [the defendant].”
No. 17-60652 (April 2, 2018,
unpublished).
Personal injury solicitor Thank you because you have been willing to share information with us. we will always appreciate all you have done here because I know you are very concerned with our.
ReplyDelete