![autodata inc autodata inc](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1367181739085488133/Gz9GvDtS_400x400.jpg)
Before me is the Plaintiff’s request to certify that appeal for the reasons that follow, certification is inappropriate. Shortly after this ruling, the Plaintiff asked me to cancel the hearing and instead pursued this interlocutory appeal. After argument, I again ruled, on August 29, 2016, that I would hear only evidence of post-filing spoliation, in order to avoid redundant consideration, and perhaps inconsistent findings and remedies, with the arbitrator. The Plaintiff intended, despite my bench ruling of March 10, 2016, to put on evidence of all instances of spoliation, pre- and post-filing. Shortly before that, the parties indicated to me that they did not agree on what evidence would be submitted at that hearing. I scheduled a hearing on those allegations of spoliation pertinent here for August 31, 2016. Arbitration, including of the spoliation issues, is going forward on an expedited basis. 2 Following that bench ruling, the parties proceeded with arbitration. In order to efficiently bifurcate the two interests I have described above, I determined, by bench ruling on Main the exercise of my discretion, to hear only that evidence of spoliation or litigation misconduct occurring after the litigation was filed, which has the potential to have worked a fraud on the Court other evidence of misconduct should be presented to the arbitrator, who will be able to avoid prejudice to the Plaintiff resulting from any spoliation by the Defendants. The Plaintiff asked this Court to hold a hearing on, and use the contempt power to redress, the Defendants’ alleged spoliation here. The former, necessarily here, will be a matter for the arbitrator the latter, for this Court. There are, to my mind, two components involved in the appropriate resolution of claims of spoliation: minimizing its effect on the administration of justice, which may require shifting burdens of proof or excluding submissions of evidence by the spoliator to prevent prejudice to the nonspoliating party and use of the contempt power to vindicate the integrity of the Court and the interest of the public in the preservation and presentation of evidence, in the interest of justice. Because spoliation inhibits the search for truth and the administration of justice, it is anathema to our courts accordingly, allegations of spoliation are taken seriously. The remaining issue before me (in addition to my retention of jurisdiction in case the matter proves non-arbitrable) involves the Plaintiff’s allegations that the Defendants have spoliated evidence and obstructed justice in this case. The parties subsequently moved to an expedited arbitration. I retained jurisdiction in case the arbitrator found some or all issues non-arbitrable. Accordingly, I stayed the substantive claims, but entered injunctive relief to preserve the potential remedy of rescission. The parties contractually retained a carve-out to seek preliminary injunctive relief in this Court. By bench ruling of March 10, 2016, I found that the parties had contractually agreed to send all such disputes, including disputes as to arbitrability, to arbitration. 11808-VCG Dear Counsel: This case involves the Plaintiff’s allegations that the Defendants improperly dissolved a joint venture of the parties. Autodata Solutions, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. Market Street Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899 Chrome Systems, Inc. Matthew Belger, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP 1313 N. West Street, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Kevin R.
![autodata inc autodata inc](http://www.eobdtool.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/clip_image018.jpg)
Mozal, Esquire Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP 100 S. SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 Date Submitted: SeptemDate Decided: SeptemGarrett B.