Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:15-cv-00211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Syntel v. TriZetto, Judge Schofield denied Defendants’ motion seeking an adverse-inference instruction against Syntel.
The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. were denied an adverse-inference instruction against Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc.; the jury will not receive that instruction.
What happened
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., The TriZetto Group and Cognizant Technology Solutions asked the court to instruct the jury to draw a negative conclusion from Syntel’s failure to provide computers for seventeen custodians to a forensic examiner.
The parties disputed whether Syntel acted with a blameworthy state of mind and whether the missing evidence was relevant to a claim or defense. Based on the facts described in the parties’ legal briefs, the court found that Defendants had not met their burden on those two requirements.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Defendants’ motion in limine No. 4. The jury will not be instructed to draw adverse inferences against Syntel concerning the computers that were not produced to the forensic examiner.
The detailed version
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-00211
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 30, 2020
Background
The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., collectively called Defendants, moved in limine. A motion in limine asks the court to decide an evidentiary issue before or during trial. Defendants sought an adverse-inference instruction based on Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc., collectively called Syntel, not producing computers for seventeen custodians to a forensic examiner.
Legal Standard and Analysis
An adverse-inference instruction permits a jury to draw a negative conclusion from a party’s failure to preserve or produce relevant evidence. The opinion identifies two disputed requirements: a culpable state of mind and evidence relevant to a claim or defense. Based on the parties’ descriptions of the facts in their legal memoranda, the court concluded that Defendants had not met their burden of establishing either requirement.
Ruling
The court denied Defendants’ motion in limine No. 4. The jury will not be instructed to draw adverse inferences against Syntel concerning Syntel’s failure to produce certain computers to the forensic examiner. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 703.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.