Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)

1,176 views

Published on

Chart of Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Court:

Information included for each sanction:

- Scope of Duty to Preserve

- Can conduct be culpable per se without consideration of reasonableness?

- Culpability and prejudice requirements....
- for sanctions in general
- for dispositive sanctions
- for adverse inference instruction
- for a rebuttable presumption of relevance

- What constitutes prejudice?

- Culpability and corresponding jury instructions

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,176
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
100
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit Courts (printable chart)

  1. 1. Spoliation Sanctions by CircuitAdapted from the Appendix to U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm‟s Victor Stanley II opinionVictor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., et al. (D.MD, Sept. 9, 2010)CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceFirst Circuit It is a duty topreserve potentiallyrelevant evidence aparty owns orcontrols and also aduty to notify theopposing party ofevidence in thehands of thirdparties.Velez v. Marriott PRMgmt., Inc., 590 F.Supp. 2d 235, 258(D.P.R. 2008).This specific issuehas not beenaddressed.“The measure ofthe appropriatesanctions willdepend on theseverity of theprejudice suffered.”Velez v. Marriott PRMgmt., Inc., 590 F.Supp. 2d 235, 259(D.P.R. 2008).“[C]arelessness isenough for a districtcourt to considerimposingsanctions.”Driggin v. Am. Sec.Alarm Co., 141 F.Supp. 2d 113, 123(D. Me. 2000).“severe prejudice oregregious conduct”Driggin v. Am. Sec.Alarm Co., 141 F.Supp. 2d 113, 123(D. Me. 2000).“does not requirebad faith orcomparable badmotive”Trull v. Volkswagenof Am., Inc., 187F.3d 88, 95 (1stCir. 1999); Oxley v.Penobscot County,No. CV-09-21-JAW,2010 WL 3154975(D. Me. 2010)Whether relevancecan be presumedhas not beenaddressed.When spoliationsubstantially deniesa party the ability tosupport or defendthe claimVelez v. Marriott PRMgmt., Inc., 590 F.Supp. 2d 235, 259(D.P.R. 2008).Intentionalspoliation;permissive adverseinference if the juryfinds that thespoliator knew ofthe lawsuit and thedocuments‟relevance when itdestroyed themTesta v. Wal-MartStores, Inc., 144F.3d 173, 178 (1stCir. 1998).
  2. 2. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceSecond Circuit Documents thatare potentiallyrelevant to likelylitigation “areconsidered to beunder a party‟scontrol,” such thatthe party has a dutyto preserve them,“when that partyhas the right,authority, orpractical ability toobtain thedocuments from anon-party to theaction.”In re NTL, Inc. Sec.Litig., 244 F.R.D.179, 195 (S.D.N.Y.2007).The duty extends tokey players.Zubulake v. UBSWarburg LLC, 220F.R.D. 212, 217(S.D.N.Y. 2003).Yes; specificactions, such as thefailure “to issue awritten litigationhold,” constitutegross negligenceper se.Pension Comm. ofthe Univ. ofMontreal PensionPlan v. Banc of Am.Sec., 685 F. Supp.2d 456, 471(S.D.N.Y. 2010).“[D]iscoverysanctions…may beimposed upon aparty that hasbreached adiscovery obligationnot only throughbad faith or grossnegligence, but alsothrough ordinarynegligence.”Residential FundingCorp. v. DeGeorgeFin. Corp., 306 F.3d99, 113 (2d Cir.2002).“‟willfulness, badfaith, or fault on thepart of thesanctioned party‟”Dahoda v. JohnDeere Co., 216 Fed.App‟x 124, 125,2007 WL 491846,at *1 (2d Cir. 2007)(quoting West v.Goodyear Tire &Rubber Co., 167F.3d 776, 779 (2dCir. 1999)).Gross negligencePension Comm. ofthe Univ. ofMontreal PensionPlan v. Banc of Am.Sec., 685 F. Supp.2d 456, 478-79(S.D.N.Y. 2010).NegligenceResidential FundingCorp. v. DeGeorgeFin. Corp., 306 F.3d99, 108 (2d Cir.2002).Intentional conductIn re TerroristBombings of U.S.Embassies in EastAfrica, 552 F.3d 93,148 (2d Cir. 2008).Bad faith or grossnegligencePension Comm. ofthe Univ. ofMontreal PensionPlan v. Banc of Am.Sec., 685 F. Supp.2d 456, 467(S.D.N.Y. 2010).When spoliationsubstantially deniesa party the ability tosupport or defendthe claimPension Comm. ofthe Univ. ofMontreal PensionPlan v. Banc of Am.Sec., 685 F. Supp.Sec. 2d 456, 479(S.D.N.Y. 2010)Grossly negligentconduct;permissibleinference of “therelevance of themissing documentsand resultingprejudice tothe…Defendants.subject to theplaintiffs‟ ability torebut thepresumption to thesatisfaction of thetrier of fact.”Pension Comm. ofthe Univ. ofMontreal PensionPlan v. Banc of Am.Sec., 685 F. Supp.2d 456, 478(S.D.N.Y.2010)Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 2
  3. 3. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceThird Circuit Potentially relevantevidence; “„it isessential that theevidence inquestion be withinthe partys control.‟”Canton v. KmartCorp., No. 1:05-CV-143, 2009 WL2058908, at *2(D.V.I. July 13,2009) (quotingBrewer v. QuakerState Oil RefiningCorp., 72 F.3d 326,334 (3d Cir. 1995))No; conduct isculpable if “party[with] notice thatevidence is relevantto an action…eitherproceeds to destroythat evidence orallows it to bedestroyed byfailing to takereasonableprecautions”Canton v. KmartCorp., No. 1:05-CV-143, 2009 WL2058908, at *3(D.V.I. July 13,2009) (quotingMosaid Techs., Inc.v. Samsung Elecs.Co., 348 F. Supp.2d 332, 338 (D.N.J.2004)) (emphasisadded).Bad faithBensel v. AlliedPilots Assn, 263F.R.D. 150, 152(D.N.J. 2009).The degree of faultis considered, andDispositivesanctions “shouldonly be imposed inthe mostextraordinary ofsee circumstances,”Mosaid Techs., Inc.v. Samsung Elecs.Co., 348 F. Supp.2d 332, 335 (D.N.J.2004), but aminimum degree ofculpability has notbeen identifiedNegligenceCanton v. KmartCorp., No. 1:05-CV-143, 2009 WL2058908, at *2-3(D.V.I. July 13,2009)Intentional conductBrewer v. QuakerState Oil RefiningCorp., 72 F.3d 326,334 (3d Cir. 1995)Whether relevancecan be presumedhas not beenaddressedSpoliation ofevidence that wouldhave helped aparty‟s caseIn re Hechinger Inv.Co. of Del., Inc.,489 F.3d 568, 579(3d Cir. 2007)Intentionalspoliation;permissibleinferenceMosaid Techs., Inc.v. Samsung Elecs.Co., 348 F. Supp.2d332, 334 (D.N.J.2004)Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 3
  4. 4. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceFourth Circuit Documents that arepotentially relevantto likely litigation“are considered tobe under a party‟scontrol,” such thatthe party has a dutyto preserve them,“when that partyhas „the right,authority, orpractical ability toobtain thedocuments from anon-party to theaction.‟”Goodman v. PraxairServs., Inc., 632 F.Supp. 2d 494, 515(D. Md. 2009)(citation omitted).It is also a duty tonotify the opposingparty of evidence inthe hands of thirdparties.Silvestri v. Gen.Motors Corp., 271F.3d 583, 590 (4thCir. 2001).Duty extends to keyplayers.Goodman, 632 F.Supp. 2d at 512The U.S. DistrictCourt for theDistrict of Marylandhas quotedZubulake IV, 220F.R.D. at 220(“Once the duty topreserve attaches,any destruction ofdocuments is, at aminimum,negligent.”). SeeSampson v. City ofCambridge, No.WDQ-06-1819,2008 WL 7514364,at *8 (D. Md. May1, 2008) (findingdefendant‟s conductnegligent); PandoraJewelry, LLC v.Chamilia LLC , No.CCB-06-3041, 2008WL 4533902, at *9(D. Md. Sept. 30,2008) (findingdefendant‟s conductgrossly negligent);cf. Goodman, 632F. Supp. 2d at 522(stating thatdefendant, “muchlike the defendantsin Sampson andPandora, wasclearly negligent”because it failed toimplement alitigation hold, butalso explaining whysuch action wasnegligent).“only a showing offault, with thedegree of faultimpacting theseverity ofsanctions”Sampson v. City ofCambridge, 251F.R.D. 172, 179 (D.Md. 2008) (using“fault” to describeconduct rangingfrom bad faithdestruction toordinarynegligence).The court must “beable to concludeeither (1) that thespoliator‟s conductwas so egregious asto amount to aforfeiture of hisclaim, or (2) thatthe effect of thespoliators conductwas so prejudicialthat it substantiallydenied thedefendant theability to defend theclaim.”Silvestri v. Gen.Motors Corp., 271F.3d 583, 593 (4thCir. 2001).The court “mustonly find thatspoliator actedwillfully in thedestruction ofevidence.”Goodman v. PraxairServs., Inc., 632 F.Supp. 2d 494, 519(D. Md. 2009).Willful behaviorSampson v. City ofCambridge, 251F.R.D. 172, 179 (D.Md. 2008).When spoliationsubstantially deniesa party the ability tosupport or defendthe claimGoodman v. PraxairServs., Inc., 632 F.Supp. 2d 494, 519(D. Md. 2009);Sampson v. City ofCambridge,F.R.D. 172, 180 (D.Md. 2008).Willful spoliation;adverse juryinstruction, but notthe “series of fact-specific adversejury instructions”that the plaintiffrequestedGoodman v. PraxairServs., Inc., 632 F.Supp. 2d 494, 523(D. Md. 2009).Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 4
  5. 5. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceFifth Circuit Party with controlover potentiallyrelevant evidencehas a duty topreserve it; scopeincludes evidence inpossession of“employees likely tohave relevantinformation, i.e.,„the key players‟”Tango Transp., LLCv. Transp. Int‟l Pool,Inc., No. 5:08-CV-0559, 2009 WL3254882, at *3(W.D. La. Oct. 8,2009)No: “Whetherpreservation ordiscovery conduct isacceptable in a casedepends on what isreasonable, andthat in turndepends onwhether what wasdone - or not done– was proportionalto that case andconsistent withclearly establishedapplicablestandards.”Rimkus ConsultingGroup, Inc. v.Cammarata, 688 F.Supp. 2d 598, 613(S.D. Tex. 2010).“some degree ofculpability”Rimkus ConsultingGroup, Inc. v.Cammarata, 688 F.Supp. 2d 598, 613(S.D. Tex. 2010).Bad faith (andprejudice)Rimkus ConsultingGroup, Inc. v.Cammarata, 688 F.Supp. 2d 598, 614(S.D. Tex. 2010)Bad faithRimkus ConsultingGroup, Inc. v.Cammarata, 688 F.Supp. 2d 598, 617(S.D. Tex. 2010)“The Fifth Circuithas not explicitlyaddressed whethereven bad-faithdestruction ofevidence allows acourt to presumethat the destroyedevidence wasrelevant or its lossprejudicial.”Rimkus ConsultingGroup, Inc. v.Cammarata, 688 F.Supp. 2d 598, 617-18 (S.D. Tex. 2010)When spoliationsubstantially deniesa party the ability tosupport or defendthe claimRimkus ConsultingGroup, Inc. v.Cammarata, 688 F.Supp. 2d 598, 613(S.D. Tex. 2010)Willful spoliation;jury instructionwould “ask the juryto decide whetherthe defendantsintentionally deletedemails andattachments toprevent their use inlitigation.”Rimkus ConsultingGroup, Inc. v.Cammarata, 688 F.Supp. 2d 598, 620,646 (S.D. Tex.2010).Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 5
  6. 6. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceSixth Circuit It is a duty topreserve potentiallyrelevant evidencethat a party ownsor controls and tonotify the opposingparty of evidence inthe hands of thirdparties.Jain v. MemphisShelby AirportAuth., No. 08-2119-STA-dkv, 2010 WL711328, at *2(W.D. Tenn. Feb.25, 2010).Duty extends to keyplayersIn re Nat‟l CenturyFin. Enters., Inc.Fin. Inv. Litig., No.2:03-md-1565,2009 WL 2169174,at *11 (S.D. OhioJuly 16, 2009).This specific issuehas not beenaddressed. InBancorpSouth Bankv. Herter, 643 F.Supp. 2d 1041,1061 (W.D. Tenn.2009), the courtquoted Zubulake IV,220 F.R.D. at 220(“Once the duty topreserve attaches,any destruction ofdocuments is, at aminimum,negligent.”), but italso analyzed thedefendant‟s conductto make the findingthat it was “morethan negligent.”Bad faith(intentional)destruction, grossnegligence, orordinary negligenceIn re GlobalTechnovations, Inc.,431 B.R. 739, 780(Bankr. E.D. Mich.2010) (equatingintentional and badfaith conduct).willfulness, badfaith, or faultIn re GlobalTechnovations, Inc.,431 B.R. 739, 779(Bankr. E.D. Mich.2010) (using “fault”to describe conductranging fromintentional conductto ordinarynegligence).Other cases incircuit define“fault” asobjectivelyunreasonablebehavior.” E.g.,BancorpSouth Bankv. Herter, 643 F.Supp. 2d 1041,1060 (W.D. Tenn.v. 2009); Jain v.Memphis ShelbyAirport Auth., 08-2119-STA-dkv,2010 WL 711328,at *3 (W.D. Tenn.Feb. 25, 2010).Bad faithIn re GlobalTechnovations,Inc., 431 B.R. 739,782 (Bankr. E.D.Mich. 2010).Bad faith notrequiredMiller v. HomeDepot USA, Inc.,No. 3-08-0281,2010 WL 373860,at *1 (M.D. Tenn.Jan. 28, 2010).Ordinary negligenceJain v. MemphisShelby AirportAuth., No. 08-2119-STA-dkv,2010 WL 711328,at *3 (W.D. Tenn.Feb. 25, 2010);Forest Labs., Inc. v.Caraco Pharm.Labs., Ltd., No. 06-CV-13143, 2009 WL998402, at *5-6(E.D. Mich. Apr. 14,2009).“The spoliatingparty bears theburden ofestablishing lack ofprejudice to theopposing party, aburden the SixthCircuit hasdescribed as „anuphill battle.‟”Jain v. MemphisShelby AirportAuth., No. 08-2119-STA-dkv, 2010 WL711328, at *2(W.D. Tenn. Feb.25, 2010).When spoliationsubstantially deniesa party the ability tosupport or defendthe claimJain v. MemphisShelby AirportAuth., No. 08-2119-STA-dkv, 2010 WL711328, at *4(W.D. Tenn. Feb.25,2010)Unintentionalconduct;permissibleinferenceJain v. MemphisShelby AirportAuth., No. 08-2119-STA-dkv,2010 WL 711328,at *4-5 (W.D. Tenn.Feb. 25, 2010)Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 6
  7. 7. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceSeventhCircuitDuty to preservepotentially relevantevidence party hascontrol overJones v. BremenHigh Sch. Dist. 228,No. 08-C-3548,2010 WL 2106640,at *5 (N.D. Ill. May25, 2010).No: Breach is failureto act reasonablyunder thecircumstancesJones v. BremenHigh Sch. Dist. 228,No. 08-C-3548,2010 WL 2106640,at *6-7 (N.D. Ill.May 25, 2010).“The failure toinstitute adocument retentionpolicy, in the formof a litigation hold,is relevant to thecourtsconsideration, but itis not per seevidence ofsanctionableconduct.”Haynes v. Dart, No.08 C 4834, 2010WL 140387, at *4(N.D. Ill. Jan. 11,2010)Willfulness, badfaith, or faultJones v. BremenHigh Sch. Dist. 228,No. 08-C-3548,2010 WL 2106640,at *5 (N.D. Ill. May25, 2010). (statingthat fault is basedon thereasonableness ofthe party‟sconduct).Bad faithBP Amoco ChemicalCo. v. Flint HillsResources, LLC, No.05 C 5, 2010 WL1131660, at *24(N.D. Ill. Mar. 25,2010).Willfulness, badfaith, or faultIn re Kmart Corp.,371 B.R. 823, 840(Bankr. N.D. Ill.2007) (noting thatfault, while basedon reasonableness,is more than a“„slight error injudgment‟”)(citation omitted)Bad faithFaas v. Sears,Roebuck & Co., 532F.3d 633, 644 (7thCir. 2008).Unintentionalconduct isinsufficient forpresumption ofrelevanceIn re Kmart Corp.,371 B.R. 823, 853-54 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.2007)When spoliationsubstantially deniesa party the ability tosupport or defendthe claimKrumwiede v.Brighton Assocs.,L.L.C., No. 05-C-3003, 2006 WL1308629, at *10(N.D. Ill. May 8,2006).When spoliationsubstantially deniesa party the ability tosupport or defendthe claim OR delaysproduction ofevidenceJones v. BremenHigh Sch. Dist. 228,No. 08-C-3548,2010 WL 2106640,at *8-9 (N.D. Ill.May 25, 2010).Grossly negligentconduct; juryinstruction to informthe jury of thedefendant‟s dutyand breach thereofJones v. BremenHigh Sch. Dist. 228,No. 08-C-3548,2010 WL 2106640,at *10 (N.D. Ill.May 25, 2010).Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 7
  8. 8. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceEighth Circuit Duty to preservepotentially relevantdocuments inparty‟s possessionDillon v. NissanMotor Co., 986 F.2d263, 267 (8th Cir.1993).Courts in the EighthCircuit have notfound conductculpable withoutanalyzing the facts,althoughreasonableness isnot discussed.Bad faithWright v. City ofSalisbury, No.2:07CV0056 AGF,2010 WL 126011,at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr.6, 2010).Bad faithJohnson v. AvcoCorp., No. 4:07CV1695 CDP, 2010 WL1329361, at*13 (E.D. Mo.2010); Menz v. NewHolland N. Am.,Inc., 440 F.3d1002, 1006 (8thCir. 2006).Bad faithGreyhound Lines,Inc. v. Wade, 485F.3d 1032, 1035(8th Cir. 2007);Menz v. NewHolland N. Am.,Inc., 440 F.3d1002, 1006 (8thCir. 2006);Stevenson v. UnionPac. RR, 354 F.3d739, 747 (8th Cir.2004) (bad faithrequired ifspoliation happenspre-litigation)Bad faith is notrequired to sanctionfor “the ongoingdestruction ofrecords duringlitigation anddiscovery.”Stevenson, 354F.3d at 750;MeccaTech, Inc. v.Kiser, 2008 WL6010937, at *8 (D.Neb. 2008) (same),adopted in part, No.8:05CV570,2009 WL 1152267(D. Neb. Apr. 23,2009).This issue has notbeen addressed,but it has beenstated that there isno presumption ofirrelevance ofintentionallydestroyeddocuments.Alexander v. Nat‟lFarmers Org., 687F.2d 1173, 1205(8th Cir. 1982).Destruction ofevidence that “mayhave [been] helpful”Dillon v. NissanMotor Co., 986 F.2d263, 268 (8th Cir.1993).“irreparable injuryto plaintiffs‟ claims”Monsanto Co. v.Woods, 250 F.R.D.411, 414 (E.D. Mo.2008).“destruction wasnot „willful‟ ormalicious,‟” butplaintiffs‟ counselshould have knownto preserve theevidence; jury wasinstructed that “anadverse inferencemay be drawn fromplaintiffs‟ failure topreserve thevehicle”Bass v. Gen.Motors Corp., 929F. Supp. 1287,1290 (W.D. Mo.1996), aff‟d on thisground, 150 F.3d842, 851 (8th Cir.1998).Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 8
  9. 9. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceNinth Circuit Duty to preservepotentially relevantevidence in party‟spossessionLeon v. IDXSystems Corp.,2004 WL 5571412,at *3 (W.D. Wash.2004), aff‟d 464F.3d 951 (9th Cir.2006).Duty extends to keyplayers.Hous. Rights Ctr. v.Sterling , 2005 WL3320739, at *3(C.D. Cal. Mar. 2,2005).In Hous. Rights,Ctr. v. Sterling,2005 WL 3320739,at *3 (C.D. Cal.Mar. 2, 2005), thecourt quotedZubulake IV, 220F.R.D. at 220(“Once the duty topreserve attaches,any destruction ofdocuments is, at aminimum,negligent.”), andfound thatdefendants‟“[d]estruction ofdocuments duringongoing litigationwas, at a minimum,negligent.”Bad faith notrequiredDae Kon Kwon v.Costco WholesaleCorp., No. CIV. 08-360 JMSBMK, 2010WL 571941, at *2(D. Hawai„i 2010);Carl Zeiss VisionIntern. GmbH v.Signet Armorlite,Inc., No. 07CV0894MS(POR), 2010 WL743792, at *15(S.D. Cal. Mar. 1,2010), amended onother grounds,2010 WL 1626071(S.D. Cal. Apr 21,2010).Willfulness, badfaith, or faultDae Kon Kwon v.Costco WholesaleCorp., No. CIV. 08-360 JMSBMK, 2010WL 571941, at *2(D. Hawai„i 2010)(requiring that party“engageddeliberately indeceptivepractices”)“„[D]isobedientconduct not shownto be outside thecontrol of thelitigant‟ is all that isrequired todemonstratewillfulness, badfaith, or fault.”Henry v. Gill Indus.,983 F.2d 943, 948(9th Cir. 1993).Bad faith or grossnegligenceKarnazes v. Countyof San Mateo, No.09-0767 MMC(MEJ), 2010 WL2672003, at *2(N.D. Cal. July 2,2010).Bad faith notrequiredOtsuka v. PoloRalph Lauren Corp.,No. C 07-02780 SI,2010 WL 366653,at *3 (N.D. Cal.Jan. 25, 2010)This issue has notbeen addressedWhen spoliationsubstantially deniesa party the ability tosupport or defendthe claimHenry v. Gill Indus.,983 F.2d 943, 948(9th Cir. 1993).The Court‟sresearch has notlocated case inwhich the courtgranted an adverseinference instructionand stated what theinstruction wouldbe.Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 9
  10. 10. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceTenth Circuit Duty extends to keyplayersPinstripe, Inc. v.Manpower, Inc.,No. 07-CV-620-GKFPJC, 2009 WL2252131, at *1(N.D. Okla. July 29,2009).A party withpossession ofpotentially relevantevidence has a dutyto preserve it; evenif the partyrelinquishesownership orcustody, it mustcontact the newcustodian topreserve theevidence.Jordan F. MillerCorp. v. Mid-Continent AircraftServ., 139 F.3d912,1998 WL 68879, at*5-6 (10th Cir.1998).No.Procter & GambleCo. v. Haugen, 427F.3d 727, 739 n.8(10th Cir. 2005)(stating that districtcourt must considerRule26(b)(2)[(C)](iii),which requires thecourt to limitdiscovery if “theburden or expenseof the proposeddiscovery outweighsits likely benefit”).Bad faith notrequiredHatfield v. WalMartStores, Inc., 335Fed. App‟x 796, 804(10th Cir. 2009).NegligencePipes v. UPS, Inc.,No. CIV.A.07-1762,2009 WL 2214990,at *1 (W.D. La. July22, 2009).“willfulness, badfaith, or [some]fault”Procter & GambleCo. v. Haugen, 427F.3d 727, 738 (10thCir. 2005) (usinglanguage originallyin SocieteInternationale v.Rogers, 357 U.S.197, 212 (1958),which distinguished“fault” from aparty‟s inability toact otherwise).Bad faithTurner v. Pub. Serv.Co. of Colo., 563F.3d 1136, 1149(10th Cir. 2009).Neither bad faithnor intentionalityrequiredHatfield v. Wal-MartStores, Inc., 335Fed. App‟x 796,804 (10th Cir.2009); Schrieber v.Fed. Ex. Corp., No.09-CV-128-JHP-PJC,2010 WL 1078463(N.D. Okla. March18, 2010).Although thisspecific issue hasnot been addressed,the court declinedto “create apresumption infavor of spoliationwhenever a movingparty can prove thatrecords that mighthave containedrelevant evidencehave beendestroyed”Crandall v. City &County of Denver,Colo., No. 05-CV-00242-MSK-MEH,2006 WL 2683754,at *2 (D. Colo.Sept. 19, 2006).Spoliation thatimpairs a party‟sability to support aclaim or defense.Pinstripe, Inc. v.Manpower, Inc.,No. 07-CV-620-GKF-PJC, 2009 WL2252131, at *2(N.D. Okla. July 29,2009).Bad faith; adverseinference instructionSmith v. SliferSmith &Frampton/VailAssocs. Real Estate,LLC, No. CIVA06CV02206-JLK,2009 WL 482603,at *13 (D. Colo.Feb. 25, 2009).Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 10
  11. 11. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceEleventhCircuitDuty to preservepotentially relevantevidence that partyhas “access to andcontrol over”Nat‟l Grange Mut.Ins. Co. v. Hearth &Home, Inc., No.CIV.A.2:06CV54WCO,2006 WL 5157694at * 5 (N.D. Ga.Dec. 19, 2006).Courts in theEleventh Circuithave not foundconduct culpablewithout analyzingthe facts, althoughreasonableness isnot discussed.Bad faithManaged CareSolutions, Inc. v.Essent Healthcare,Inc., No. 09-60351-CIV, 2010 WL3368654, at *4(S.D. Fla. Aug. 23,2010).Degree ofculpability isweighed againstprejudice caused byspoliationFlury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 427F.3d 939, 945 (11thCir. 2005); Brownv. Chertoff, 563 F.Supp. 2d 1372,1381 (S.D. Ga.2008).Bad faithManaged CareSolutions, Inc. v.Essent Healthcare,Inc., No. 09-60351-CIV, 2010 WL3368654, at *12(S.D. Fla. Aug. 23,2010).Bad faithPenalty Kick Mgmt.Ltd. v. Coca ColaCo., 318 F.3d1284, 1294 (11thCir. 2003);Managed CareSolutions, Inc. v.Essent Healthcare,Inc., No. 09-60351-CIV, 2010 WL3368654, at *13(S.D. Fla. Aug. 23,2010).This issue has notbeen addressed.Spoliation ofevidence that wasnot just relevantbut “crucial” to aclaim or defenseManaged CareSolutions, Inc. v.Essent Healthcare,Inc., No. 09-60351-CIV, 2010 WL3368654, at *8(S.D. Fla. Aug. 23,2010).Negligence; jury tobe instructed thatthe destructionraises a rebuttableinference that theevidence supportedplaintiff‟s claimBrown v. Chertoff,563 F. Supp. 2d1372, 1381 (S.D.Ga. 2008) (butother courts inEleventh Circuit willnot order anysanctions withoutbad faith)Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 11
  12. 12. CircuitScope of Duty toPreserveCan conduct beculpable per sewithoutconsideration ofreasonableness?Culpability and prejudice requirementsWhat constitutesprejudiceCulpability andcorrespondingjury instructionsfor sanctionsin generalfor dispositivesanctionsfor adverseinferenceinstructionfor a rebuttablepresumption ofrelevanceD.C. Circuit Duty to preservepotentially relevantevidence “within theability of thedefendant toproduce it”Friends for AllChildren v.Lockheed AircraftCorp., 587 F. Supp.180, 189 (D.D.C.),modified, 593 F.Supp. 388,(D.D.C.), aff‟d, 746F.2d 816 (D.C. Cir.1984).Courts in the D.C.Circuit have notfound conductculpable withoutanalyzing the facts,althoughreasonableness isnot discussed.Case law addressesspecific sanctions,rather thansanctions generally.Bad faithShepherd v. Am.Broad Cos., 62 F.3d1469, 1477 (D.C.Cir. 1995);D‟Onofrio v. SFXSports Group, Inc.,No. 06-687(JDB/JMF), 2010WL 3324964, at *5(D.D.C. Aug. 24,2010).Negligent ordeliberateMazloum v. D.C.Metro. Police Dep‟t,530 F. Supp. 2d282, 292 (D.D.C.2008); More v.Snow, 480 F. Supp.2d 257, 274-75(D.D.C. 2007);D‟Onofrio v. SFXSports Group, Inc .,No. 06-687(JDB/JMF), 2010WL 3324964, at*10 (D.D.C. Aug.24, 2010) (not formerenegligence unless“the interests inrighting theevidentiary balanceand in the deterringof others trumpsthe lacuna that alogician woulddetect in the logicof giving such aninstruction”).This issue has notbeen addressed.Case law states thatthe spoliatedevidence must havebeen relevant, i.e.,information thatwould havesupported a claimor defense, but itdoes not addressprejudice.“[A]ny adverseinference instructiongrounded innegligence wouldbe considerablyweaker in bothlanguage andprobative force thanan instructionregarding deliberatedestruction.”Mazloum v. D.C.Metro. Police Dep‟t,530 F. Supp. 2d282, 293 (D.D.C.2008).Federal “In reviewing sanction orders, [the Federal Circuit] applies the law of the regional circuit from which the case arose.” Monsanto Co. v. Ralph, 382 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2004). InConsolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 228, 255 n.20 (Fed. Cl. 2009), the United States Court of Federal Claims observed that “the United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit, has not definitively addressed whether a finding of bad faith is required before a court can find spoliation or impose an adverse inference or other sanction. Becausemany of the spoliation cases decided to date by the Federal Circuit have been patent cases in which the Federal Circuit applies the law of the relevant regional circuit, the Federal Circuit hasnot had the opportunity to announce a position binding on this court as to a possible „bad faith‟ or other standard to trigger a spoliation of evidence sanction. Consequently, judges of theUnited States Court of Federal Claims have taken differing positions on the “bad faith” requirement. Compare [United Med. Supply Co. v. United States, 77 Fed Cl. 257, 268 (2007)] („[A]ninjured party need not demonstrate bad faith in order for the court to impose, under its inherent authority, spoliation sanctions.‟), with Columbia First Bank, FSB v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl.693, 703 (2002) (noting findings of bad faith are required before the court can determine that there was spoliation).” (Citation omitted.)Spoliation Sanctions by Circuit | Page 12

×