From an August 5th decision out of the SDNY. (Regulatory Fundamentals Group LLC v. Governance Risk Mgmt. Compliance, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107616 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014)) (h/t: Eric Goldman) "A party to a lawsuit may not destroy relevant evidence without consequence." Agreed. Here's more from the opinion, and then a question.
A party to a lawsuit may not destroy relevant evidence without consequence. The nature and magnitude of the consequence follows from the level of culpability. Was, for instance, the destruction of evidence inadvertent and the result of an oversight? Or was it the product of a plan?
The individual defendant in this lawsuit destroyed a large number of highly relevant documents — preventing plaintiff and any finder of fact from ever knowing the full truth of what occurred. Following discovery, lengthy briefing, and an evidentiary hearing, the Court has found that defendant's destruction was planned, repeated, and comprehensive. It was malicious. This finding is particularly unfortunate in light of the plain fact that the spoliation has turned what was a straightforward commercial dispute into a far more serious issue.
The spoliator here — defendant Gregory V. Wood — is a graduate of Cornell Law School and a member of the bar of the State of New York. His conduct has resulted in entry of judgment against him.
The case is worth reading if you're interested in spoliation. My question: what is the legitimate purpose for mentioning his law school? Is it to embarrass that school? Or is it the notion (which would bother me) that graduates of lower ranked schools might do bad things but it's especially disappointing to see it from grads of elite schools?