44.1k views
3 votes
Subject: computer forensics

*Case 3*
This lawsuit occurred over a fairly insignificant crime; plaintiffs claimed that defendants, including the real estate firm The Corcoran Group, knowingly sold them a condominium that flooded during storms, but failed to disclose this information to the buyers. The court discovered that the Corcoran Group defendants had irrecoverably deleted many emails relevant to the case once litigation began. This case changed the legal precedent on storage and deletion of electronically stored information, establishing an obligation to preserve electronically stored information relevant to a lawsuit that is underway or that seems likely to occur in the future.
1. What is the possible digital evidence?
2. Justify two strong points to win this case?

1 Answer

6 votes

Final answer:

In a lawsuit accusing The Corcoran Group of selling a flood-prone condominium without disclosure, the possible digital evidence includes deleted emails that would prove the sellers' knowledge of the issue. Crucial points include the defendants' obligation to preserve evidence and the implication of spoliation, suggesting the destroyed evidence was detrimental to their case.

Step-by-step explanation:

Possible Digital Evidence

The possible digital evidence in this case would include the emails that the defendants allegedly deleted, which could have proven whether they had knowledge of the condominium's flooding issues. This evidence would have been crucial in determining if there was a failure to disclose vital information to the buyers.

Two strong points to win this case would involve:

  • Demonstrating that the defendants had a legal obligation to preserve electronically stored information relevant to the ongoing litigation or anticipated legal action, which they breached by irrecoverably deleting the emails.
  • Showing that the deletion of these emails constitutes spoliation of evidence, which might result in sanctions and strengthen the plaintiff's case by allowing the court to presume that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the defendants.

User Ian Viney
by
7.6k points