From our private database of 30,500+ case briefs...
Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
720 F. Supp. 2d 587 (2010)
Alleging unlawful racial discrimination in the inspection of buses, Major Tours, Inc. and others (plaintiffs) sued New Jersey state officials and agencies (State Defendants) as well as a repair shop and its owner (collectively, defendants) in a federal district court. State Defendants were first put on notice of the claim when they received a letter threatening litigation on September 11, 2003. A formal litigation hold letter was not issued by State Defendants until March 22, 2007, however. During pretrial discovery, plaintiffs requested the production of State Defendants’ emails going back to a date prior to issuance of the litigation hold. State Defendants moved for a protective order allowing them not to produce emails from before 2008 on the ground that those emails had been deleted from the server and were preserved on backup tapes that would be difficult and expensive to access, costing approximately $1.5 million. Plaintiffs argued that State Defendants should not be relieved from producing the emails given that their inaccessibility was caused by State Defendants’ failure to preserve the data as legally required. A magistrate judge ruled in favor of State Defendants, concluding that, on balance, plaintiffs’ need for the evidence did not outweigh the burden of producing it, notwithstanding the culpability of State Defendants in causing the burden. The magistrate found, in particular, that given the amount of data already produced, plaintiffs were unlikely to find much relevant, nonredundant information in the backup tapes. In addition, the parties agreed that State Defendants’ negligence was unintentional. The magistrate ordered that if plaintiffs still desired production of emails from the backup tapes, a limited number of tapes could be accessed, with plaintiffs sharing, or bearing entirely, the cost of recovery, depending on the date of the tapes recovered. Plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Simandle, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 551,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,500 briefs, keyed to 984 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.