From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aramark Mgmt. v. Borgquist

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 8, 2021
Case No. 8:18-cv-01888-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 8:18-cv-01888-JLS-KES

03-08-2021

ARAMARK MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEVE BORGQUIST, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 198.) Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. (Dkt. 201.) The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) At trial, the jury will be instructed to presume that the emails Steve and Brent Borgquist deleted in late June or early July 2018 were unfavorable to Defendants.

(2) At trial, the jury will be instructed that: (a) the jury should decide if the Borgquists deleted text messages, recycled Brent's Dell laptop, and traded in Brent's iPhone with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their use in litigation; and (b) if so, the jury should presume any ESI on those devices was unfavorable to Defendants.

(3) The parties shall submit proposed jury instructions on the above issues pursuant to the Court's standard pre-trial procedures.

(4) Defendants, the law firm of current defense counsel, and the law firm of former defense counsel Mr. Lattin are jointly and severally liable for the reasonable expenses Plaintiffs incurred in bringing the instant motion.

(5) If Plaintiffs wish to have Steve Borgquist's iPhone reexamined by Driven or another mutually agreed-upon vendor, Defendants and the law firm of current defense counsel shall pay the reasonable expenses of conducting such an examination.

(6) If Plaintiffs wish to further depose Steve Borgquist about the box of documents in his garage, the law firm of former defense counsel Mr. Lattin should pay any reasonable expenses incurred in conducting such a deposition, including attorney's fees.

(7) Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file a status report advising whether: (a) Plaintiffs wish to conduct the further discovery allowed by this order; and (b) after meeting and conferring with current and former defense counsel, whether the parties agree on the reasonable amount of expenses Plaintiffs incurred in bringing the instant motion and will incur in conducting the further discovery. DATED: March 08, 2021

/s/_________

JOSEPHINE L. STATON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Aramark Mgmt. v. Borgquist

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 8, 2021
Case No. 8:18-cv-01888-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021)
Case details for

Aramark Mgmt. v. Borgquist

Case Details

Full title:ARAMARK MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEVE BORGQUIST, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 8, 2021

Citations

Case No. 8:18-cv-01888-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021)