Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)

Citation: Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Parent Document: Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-09-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/174536/gallagher-v-magner-ex-rel-city-o... ↗

Full Text

890 chars

Appellants challenge both denials of sanctions, arguing that the City abused the
discovery process by failing to place a litigation hold on the destruction of emails and
TISH reports. They request an inference that “the evidence destroyed was
unfavorable” to the City. District courts have the inherent power to “fashion an
appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v.
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991). We review an order denying discovery
sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739,
745 (8th Cir. 2004). “We give substantial deference to the district court’s
determination as to whether sanctions are warranted because of its familiarity with the
case and counsel involved.” Willhite v. Collins, 459 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2006);
accord Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Wade, 485 F.3d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 2007).

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text