MANNING v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC. et al
Filing
86
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 79 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/11/2021. (rss, )
Case 1:17-cv-02824-RMB-MJS Document 86 Filed 08/11/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2858
[Docket No. 79]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
GREG MANNING,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 17-2824 (RMB/MJS)
v.
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC. et.
al.,
ORDER
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Nick Moran’s and Safelite
Fulfillment, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Objections [Docket No. 81] to Magistrate Judge Matthew
J. Skahill’s Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 79.] For the reasons set forth in the
accompanying opinion of the same date
IT IS on this 11th day of August 2021, hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Court finds no clear error in the unobjected-to portions of the Report and
Recommendation. Those portions of the report are ADOPTED;
2. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, with respect to Defendants’
Objections that Judge Skahill applied the incorrect legal standards or failed to
appreciate the “degree and extent of prejudice” caused by Plaintiff’s
spoliation;
3. The Court RESERVES JUDGMENT on whether Plaintiff deleted his
Facebook Messages with Stephen McCafferty with an intent to deprive
Defendants of the information’s use in litigation;
Case 1:17-cv-02824-RMB-MJS Document 86 Filed 08/11/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2859
4. The Court RESERVES JUDGMENT on the appropriate sanctions, if any,
for Plaintiff’s non-prejudicial spoliation of his communications with Nicholas
Walters and his prejudicial spoliation of his communications with Stephen
McCafferty; and
5. At trial, the Court will submit to the jury the question of whether Plaintiff
deleted his communications with McCafferty with an intent to deprive
Defendants of the information’s use.
s/ Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?