In re NTL Securities Litigation
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
244 F.R.D. 179 (2007)
Facts
Gordon Partners (Gordon) and others (plaintiffs) sued NTL, Inc. (defendant) for securities violations. NTL put a litigation hold on all relevant electronically stored information. NTL subsequently declared bankruptcy and split into two new companies. NTL’s successor firm, NTL Europe, Inc. (defendant), took over as defendant in the lawsuit. A new NTL, Inc. (New NTL) was not a party to the ongoing litigation. NTL Europe and New NTL concluded a demerger agreement giving each company a 10-year right to copy any of NTL’s electronically stored information in the other company’s possession. NTL Europe successfully exercised that right several times. Gordon requested NTL’s electronically stored information from both NTL Europe and New NTL. NTL Europe responded that New NTL possessed all of the electronically stored information. New NTL turned over some of what Gordon requested, but the most critical information in New NTL’s possession had been lost or destroyed. NTL Europe disclaimed responsibility for any spoliation that may have occurred while the electronically stored information was in New NTL’s possession. Gordon petitioned the court for a jury instruction on the adverse inference to be drawn from NTL Europe’s response to Gordon’s discovery request, and for sanctions against NTL Europe.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peck, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
