Source: https://www.schwartzsemerdjian.com/trial-bar-news/limits-of-pre-litigation-discovery-holds-in-california-state-court-and-the-imposition-of-sanctions-for-the-intentional-spoliation-of-evidence
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:47:55+00:00

Document:
These days it is almost instinctual for attorneys to send discovery hold letters in anticipation of a lawsuit, and much has been written about their necessity. The idea is to put a party on notice of the need to preserve evidence and, whether it is electronic discovery or physical evidence that might otherwise be destroyed, it is undoubtedly considered a best practice for attorneys on both sides of the bar to keep an opponent’s evidence intact. There appears to be a disconnect, however, between the effect attorneys hope to accomplish with their litigation hold letters and what California law provides for if such a letter is ignored. This article seeks to clear up any confusion.
To be clear, under federal law there is no misunderstanding of a party’s duty in advance of litigation. “[A] litigant is under a duty to preserve evidence which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the action.” (In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2006)). The duty attaches “from the moment that litigation is reasonably anticipated.” (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 2012).) “Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine [evidence] retention/destruction policy and put in place a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation of relevant [evidence].” (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 FRD 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).) Where a party has violated its duty to preserve evidence and engaged in spoliation, federal courts have the inherent power to impose sanctions. (See Sherman v. Rinchem Co., Inc., 687 F.3d 996, 1006 (8th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted)). Sanctions may include monetary sanctions, an adverse inference jury instruction, striking claims or defenses, exclusion of evidence, and default or dismissal.
So what is a California litigator to do if a party destroys or threatens to destroy evidence before a lawsuit is filed? If such conduct is anticipated, a party should file for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring a party to preserve relevant evidence in its possession for discovery purposes. (See Dodge, Warren & Peters Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1419.) Disobedience of such a court order would then constitute an abuse of discovery for which the court may impose sanctions under Section 2023.030.
Another essential tool a party has is that litigants who destroy evidence in anticipation of litigation may be subject to an adverse inference jury instruction regarding the willful suppression of evidence. See Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (”CACI”) No. 204; Cal. Evid. Code § 413. CACI No. 204 provides that: “You may consider whether one party intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence. If you decide that a party did so, you may decide that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party.” There does not appear to be any limitation on the use of this instruction to post-litigation activities.
Although Cedars-Sinai did not discuss pre-litigation spoliation of evidence, the Supreme Court examined the broad range of sanctions provided in section 2023 for a misuse of the discovery process: “The sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023 are potent. They include monetary and also examined other deterrents to spoliation of evidence by a litigant, which presumably would include actions outside of the “discovery process,” including the evidentiary inference that evidence made unavailable was unfavorable to the party responsible (Evid. Code, § 413); disciplinary sanctions by the State Bar of California against the lawyers involved (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6106, 6077; Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 5-220); and prosecution for the misdemeanor of willful destruction or concealment of evidence under Penal Code section 135.3.
The takeaway here is that there is an array of remedies for spoliation of evidence, but an attorney must be proactive in order to utilize these tools. Simply shooting off a discovery hold letter is usually not enough.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 413
 § 413