Plaintiff's motion for terminating sanctions for alleged spoliation of evidence was denied. "The fact that [defendant] no longer has the original source code and the reasons it would be expected to have it will be in evidence. [Plaintiff] can argue to the jury that [defendant] should have the original source code to a program that it both patented and attempted to patent for many years. . . . But entry of judgment is a severe and extreme remedy to be used only when there is clear proof that evidence central to the case has been spoliated. [Defendant's] data retention policies, as stated many times, were clearly inadequate. However, under the backdrop of the minimal evidence [plaintiff] has obtained from other parties, it is not clear that [defendant] spoliated evidence."
Phillip M. Adams & Associates, LLC v. Lenovo International et al., 1-05-cv-00064 (UTD July 21, 2010, Memorandum Decision) (Nuffer, M.J.)