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