a sanction under Rule 37, but properly imposed the sanction as an exercise of its inherent powers). 5 . Likewise, Hummer argues that several of the documents fail to show prejudice because they were preserved. This argument completely misses the point of plaintiffs’ citation of the documents. Obviously, the documents that are now in the hands of plaintiffs were preserved—otherwise plaintiffs would not have them. Plaintiffs do not argue that they have been prejudiced by the deletion of these specific documents. Rather, plaintiffs claim that these documents illustrate the types of communications that were not preserved by Hummer. Such a showing is pertinent to the existence of relevant documents which were destroyed. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422, 437 (S.D.N.Y.2004)
holding that the content of emails recovered from other sources was probative of the contents of lost emails holding that lost earnings can be recovered if the proof is reasonably certain holding that finley authorizes a police officer to search the electronic contents of a cell phone recovered from the area within an arrestees immediate control holding that the sca violates the fourth amendment to the extent that it allows government agents to obtain the contents of emails without a warrant holding that aols scanning of email communications for child pornography did not trigger the fourth amendments warrant requirement because no law enforcement officer or agency asked the provider to search or scan the defendants emails