Spoliation

When seeking sanctions for spoliated evidence, the nature of the evidence and your jurisdiction can play a pivotal role. Are you in state or federal court? Is the missing evidence electronically stored information or not? The same facts and circumstances could yield vastly different outcomes depending on the answers to those questions. It is important to recognize up front, at the start of your case, how your jurisdiction may impact discovery issues that could arise later down the road so that you can plan accordingly. In the case in this post, while the court did not ultimately affirm the imposition of an adverse jury instruction for spoliation of evidence, it did find a duty to preserve existed based not only on the parties’ contract, but on evidence the party in question had promised to preserve such evidence. By contrast, the insurers failed to demonstrate that same party owed them a duty to preserve. 

A motion for an adverse inference was denied in Pratt v. Robbins, et al. where Defendants failed to preserve or produce a video that might have contained pivotal evidence going to the heart Plaintiff’s civil rights claim for excessive force.  Plaintiff argued that Defendants spoliated evidence by failing to produce the video footage that may have recorded the use of force at issue.   A party seeking spoliation sanctions bears the burden of proving all of the elements of Rule 37(e), and under Fourth Circuit precedent is generally held to a clear and convincing standard. Plaintiff’s decision to suddenly cry foul on the eve of trial did not go over well with the Court.

While requests for email communications and collections from hard drives and networks are standard in today’s litigation, a party’s text messages, and collections from mobile devices are oftentimes overlooked. A narrowly tailored motion to compel forensic exam can be a valuable discovery tool to analyze the data on a party’s mobile phone. This blog analyzes the factors that led a court in the Northern District of Illinois to order the forensic imaging and collection of a party's mobile phone.

In Part Two of this blog series, I discuss lessons learned and provide best practices for complying with discovery obligations. In Part One of this blog series, we analyzed Burris v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., a case in which the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because of Plaintiff’s “extensive misconduct and deception, without any obvious contrition or awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct” which posed a serious risk any further proceedings would be “plagued” by a similar pattern of discovery abuse and deception that would make “it impossible for the district court to conduct a trial with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available." As litigants and legal practitioners, we can learn from the Court's decision in Burris and ensure we don't make the same mistakes.

In Part One of this blog series, I discuss a case that makes clear the importance of complying with discovery obligations. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s “extensive misconduct and deception, without any obvious contrition or awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct” posed a serious risk any further proceedings would be “plagued” by a similar pattern of discovery abuse and deception that would make “it impossible for the district court to conduct a trial with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available” and ordered Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed with prejudice. Indeed, although the old adage dictates that to the victor go the spoils, there are no spoils and no victory for one who engages in spoliation. 

In DR Distributors LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc, v. CB Distributors, Inc. and Carlos Bengos, 2021 WL 185082, No. 12 CV 50324 (1/19/2021), Judge Johnston of the Northern District of Illinois, granted Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defendants and their former counsel, requiring them to, among other things, pay what was expected to exceed a million dollars of attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff. The Court imposed the sanctions based on its conclusion that Defendants and their former counsel: did not take reasonable steps to preserve ESI (electronically stored information); did not conduct a reasonable investigation of their ESI; did not timely disclose ESI under 26(g); and spoliated thousands of emails and chat messages. This ruling shows that we, as legal practitioners, need to be extremely congizant of our discovery obligations.