N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OADR UNNER TR ANSPOR TATION SER VIC ES, INC ., Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOHN TAR

W ATER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-55448

D.C . No. 8:10-c v-01534-AG-M LG
M EM O R ANDUM *

R OADR UNNER TR ANSPOR TATION SER VIC ES, INC ., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JOHN TAR

W ATER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-55529 D.C . No. 8:10-c v-01534-AG-M LG

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Andre w J. Guilford, District Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED MAR 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

10, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M URPHY, ** PAEZ, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. John Ta rwa te r a p pe a l s the distric t

c ourt’ s e ntry of de fa

ult judgm e nt a

nd
award of attorne y s’ fe e s in fa vor of his form e r e m

ploy e r, R oa drunne r Transporta

t ion Se rvic e s , Inc . R oa drunne r c ross-a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s c om pe nsatory dam a ge s award. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

e nte ring de fa

ult judgm e nt a s a

sa nc tion for Ta

rwate r’ s de le tion of da

ta from his la ptop c om pute rs. Se e Le on v . IDX Sy

s. C orp. , 464 F.3d 951, 957-58 (9th C ir. 2006) (de sc ribing sta nda rd of re vie w for spolia

t ion sa nc tions). The re wa s a

m ple e vide nc e tha

t Tarwa te r de le te d e m a ils a n d file s on his la

ptops a fte r re c e iving m

ultiple pre s e rvation de m ands from R oa drunne r, a

nd e ve n a fte r the c o urt e xplic i tly orde re d Tarwa te r to pre se rve “ a ll da t a ” on his e le c tronic de v ic e s. In a d dition to Ta rwate r’ s own a dm issions, a

third-pa rty c om pute r e xpe rt c o nc l ude d tha t file s on one of Tarwa te r’ s de vic e s ha d be e n de le te d a nd ove rwritte n during thelitiga tion, a nd tha t the d e le tions like ly

“ b y pa sse [d] the [c om

pute r’ s] R e c y c le B in” through a use r-

** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l R . M urphy , Se n ior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion. 2initia

te d proc e s s. In light of the

e vide n c e of spolia

tion, a nd the nature of R oa drunne r’ s c la im s, the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t Ta rwate r willfully de stroy e d the dat a , tha

t R o a drunne r ha d be e n de p rive d of its “ prim ary e vide nc e of Ta

rwa te r’ s a lle ge d m isa

ppropria tion a n d re late d m isc onduc t,” and tha t
a le ss dra stic sa

n c tion c ould not ha

ve a de quate l y re dre sse d the pre judic e to R oa drunne r. Se e Anhe use r-Busc h, Inc . v . N at. Be v e rageDistribs. , 69 F.3d 337, 348-55 (9th C ir. 1995). 1 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

awarding R oa drunne r $325,000 in a

ttorne y s’ fe e s. S

e e Horphag Re

s e arc h Ltd. v
. Pe lle

grini , 337 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th C ir. 2003). Thec ourt c are fully c onside re d the billing e ntrie s a nd
re a s ona ble ne s s of the hourly

rate s for R oa drunne r’ s attorne y s a nd re duc e d the
award to re fle c t a

n a ppropria te le ve l of sta ffing for the c a se . The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly a c c ounte d for the de gre e of suc c e ss a c hie ve d by R oa drunne r, a s we ll a s the p ublic ’ s inte re st in prote c ting tra d e se c re t s. S e e Muniz v
. Unite d Parc e l Se rv ., Inc
. , 738 F.3d 214, 227 (9th C ir. 2013).

1 Eve n a ssum ing tha

t a pply ing a m e nde d R

ule 37(e ) (e ffe c tive De c e m be r 1, 2015) to this c a se we re “

just a nd pra c tic a

ble ,” the distric t c ourt’ s findings would le a d to thesa

m e c o n c lusion: Ta

rwate r a c te d with theinte nt to deprive R oa drunne r of the spolia

te d inform ation’ s use in this litiga tion. S e e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 37(e ). 33. The distric t c ourt prope rly lim ite d R o a drunne r’ s c om

pe nsatory dam a ge s to the four c ustom e rs spe c ific a l ly ide ntifie d in theFirst Am e nde d C om pla int. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 54(c ); Alan N e uman Prods., Inc . v . Albright , 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th C ir. 1988). AFFIRM E D.

4