PETERSON v. SEAGATE US LLC, 07-2502. (2011)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20110315863
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 14, 2011
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2011
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs' objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated January 27, 2011 denying Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions based on Defendants' alleged spoliation of electronic data. Plaintiffs assert that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is based on errors in law and in fact. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the r
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs' objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated January 27, 2011 denying Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions based on Defendants' alleged spoliation of electronic data. Plaintiffs assert that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is based on errors in law and in fact. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the re..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs' objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated January 27, 2011 denying Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions based on Defendants' alleged spoliation of electronic data. Plaintiffs assert that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is based on errors in law and in fact.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based on that review the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation dated January 27, 2011.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Related to the Non-Preservation of Evidence is [Doc. No. 267] is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
