Want some great case law examples of preservation considerations? Cimplifi discusses ten cases illustrating preservation best practices here!

In their post titled (wait for it!) Know When to Hold Em: Case Law Trends Regarding Legal Holds and Preservation (available here), Cimplifi discusses ten cases illustrating preservation best practices (duh!). Here are two of them:

Maziar v. City of Atlanta, June 2024: Here, the District Judge sustained in part and overruled in part the plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order denying spoliation sanctions against the defendant, finding that the defendant’s text message spoliation was not in bad faith, but that the plaintiff was prejudiced. He ordered denial of the defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment and attorneys’ fees and costs for the plaintiff associated with prosecuting the sanctions motion. This case illustrates how sanctions can still occur under FRCP Rule 37(e)(1) if a party is prejudiced by the spoliation.

Hubbard v. Crow, June 2025: Here, the Court, finding that Plaintiff had control of a hyperlinked podcast file possessed by a podcaster, ordered the plaintiff to request the original file from the podcaster to avoid the possibility of sanctions under Rule 37(e) after Plaintiff’s counsel had instructed plaintiff to cut four minutes from the podcast. This case illustrates how even linked files possessed by another party could still be subject to sanctions if they are spoliated.

So, what are the other eight of ten cases illustrating preservation best practices? Find out here, it’s only one click! If you click, I’ll get off your case! 😉

So, what do you think? How is your organization managing legal holds? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using Microsoft Designer, using the term “professionally dressed robots at a poker table playing poker with some holding cards”.

Disclosure: Cimplifi is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.