Britton v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 4:11cv32-RH/WCS, 2011 WL 3236189 (N.D. Fla. June 8, 2011)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s employee(s) were found to have allowed the loss of relevant video surveillance tape, despite repeated notification of its relevance and requests for preservation, and to have done so intentionally and in bad faith, court declined to enter default judgment but precluded defendant?s presentation of certain defenses and ordered payment of attorney?s costs and fees related to the motion for sanctions and payment of half of such costs and fees related to a prior motion in which defendant?s dishonesty regarding the existence of the at issue vide resulted in costs to the plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged wrongful detention of teens for shoplifting

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.