Adverse Inference Instruction

1. According to this case, when does the duty to preserve arise? In this case, the duty to preserve arised when the defendant received service of the complaint, as well as, when the plaintiff received a response to the complaint from the defendant.
2. Define what adverse inference instruction means and why such an instruction would be useful in a civil trial. Adverse inference instruction is a rule that is applied to a case were spoliation of evidence has occurred. This instruction would be useful in a civil trial, as well as, this case because it can terminate the litigation proceedings and issue sanctions.
3. Why did plaintiffs in this case seek an adverse inference instruction and what evidence did they provide to support their allegations? The reason the plaintiffs were seeking an adverse inference instruction in this case is because the defendant failed to provide protection and/or restoration of the ESI. The evidence the plaintiffs used to
List the elements this court determined plaintiff needed to prove in order for defendant’s level of lack of preservation of evidence to justify an adverse inference instruction. The elements the court used to determine that the plaintiff needed to prove in order for the defendant’s level of lack of preservation of evidence to justify an adverse inference instruction is that the documents that were destroyed were based on state of mind, and that the documents and information destroyed was related to this case.
5. This court determined there were two avenues available to prove the relevance of allegedly spoliated information. What are they? The two avenues that prove the relevance of the allegedly spoliated information in this case is the state of mind and the plaintiff must submit evidence supporting the missing information and/or documents.
6. What is the state of mind required to show spoliation? The state of mind required to show spoliation is that the documents are knowingly, recklessly, and purposely