Peter Kurilecz wrote:
> very interesting as to why the judgement was overturned. will have to
> read deeper to see if the issue of email is addressed
It was not a records based decision:
"Judgment was reversed on the grounds that plaintiff failed to prove
compensatory damages by not establishing the fraud-free value of the
Sunbeam stock on the date of the merger transaction. Since the
decision on that issue was dispositive, the court did not reach the
other issues on appeal, including whether the trial court improperly
entered a partial default against Morgan Stanley as a sanction for
discovery misconduct, and whether the trial court erred in denying
Morgan Stanley a fair opportunity to contest and mitigate evidence of
litigation misconduct presented during the punitive damages phase of
the trial."
So the issue of spoliation never arose.
Al
> http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/2007/03/articles/news-updates/158-billion-judgment-against-morgan-stanley-reversed/index.html
--
Alan A Andolsen CMC CRM
President
Naremco Services Inc.
60 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165
Voice: 212-697-0290
Fax: 212-986-1736
MailTo:[log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.naremco.com
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance