Case Blurb: Napster C/R Litigation, any destruction once duty to preserve attaches is negligence

RT @ComplexD: A Primer on Information Theory and #Privacy - bit.ly/1bVq9mM (Peter Eckersley) @EFF 15 hours ago

RT @levarburton: Wow! MT @ACMillerphoto: Sharing yesterday's #rainbow over looking the skyline from NW Tower #CHICAGO http://t.co/xpo2RTCe… 1 day ago

RT @arstechnica: Texas becomes first state to require warrant for e-mail snooping ars.to/11H7JjY by @cfarivar 2 days ago

RT @bairdcraft: Interesting guide developed by UNC: A Citizen’s Guide to Open Government, E-Government, and Government 2.0 http://t.co/uyyb… 1 week ago

RT @wilw: Whoever leaked to @ggreenwald is more patriotic and has more respect for our Constitution than the Congress that allows spying on… 1 week ago

RT @EFF: Here's why metadata matters: call records provide a window into your life and must be protected. eff.org/r.b9Tw 1 week ago

@avilarenata It's okay as long as you only mess up the tweet. Not the food. #Nothing2Serious 1 week ago

RT @neiltyson: Things you might say if you flunked Intro Probability & Statistics: "Everything happens for a reason." 2 weeks ago

ARKYD: A Space Telescope for Everyone by Planetary Resources kck.st/19ma7DQ via @kickstarter 2 weeks ago

RT @slashdot: UN Debates Rules Surrounding Killer Robots bit.ly/13n4DUX 2 weeks ago

August 2007
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jul		Sep »
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Case Blurb: Napster C/R Litigation, any destruction once duty to preserve attaches is negligence

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

Once the duty to preserve attaches, any destruction of documents is, at a minimum, negligence. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 2006 WL 3050864 (N. D. Cal. 2006) (citing Zubulake, 220 F.R.D. 220).

About these ads

This entry was posted on August 28, 2007 at 6:40 pm and is filed under 9th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Duty to Preserve, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, N.D. Cal., Spoliation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Case Blurb: Napster C/R Litigation, affirmative nature of duty to preserve

Case Blurb: Crandall; source of court’s power to require preservation of evidence »

Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Recent Posts

Categories

Pages

Subscribe

The Tweeting Life

Blogroll

Resources

Case Blurb: Napster C/R Litigation, any destruction once duty to preserve attaches is negligence

Like this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Follow “Post Process”