Source: https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/tag/spoliation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:13:39+00:00

Document:
The Texas Supreme Court has clarified the standards for spoliation (in Texas). The rule is that Texas has a two-step process: (1) the Trial Court must determine, as a question of law, whether a party spoliated evidence, and (2) if spoliation occurred, the Court must assess an appropriate remedy. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 562, 3-4 (Tex. July 3, 2014).
This Allemande Left and Do So Do requires a Trial Court to find that (1) the spoliating party had a duty to reasonably preserve evidence, and (2) the party intentionally or negligently breached that duty by failing to do so. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., at *3. This is to be done outside the presence of the jury, so the accused party is not swung around before the jurors, causing any prejudicial effect by the presentation of evidence that is unrelated to the facts underlying the lawsuit. Id. (and memories of 7th grade square dancing).
The jury is to only hear evidence of spoliation that is related to the lawsuit. If there is spoliation, the then Trial Court can craft a proportionate remedy based upon the level of culpability of the spoliating party and the degree of prejudice, if any, suffered by the nonspoliating party. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., at *4.
The facts of the Texas case involved video footage at a grocery store of a slip and fall. The Plaintiff slipped at the store and reported the incident the following day after going to the emergency room. The store saved video of the fall, starting from before the Plaintiff entered and left the premises. The video lasted 8 minutes. However, the rest of the video was deleted per the company’s data destruction policy after 30 days. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. at *6-7.
The Texas Supreme Court held that a party must intentionally spoliate evidence in order for a spoliation instruction to constitute an appropriate remedy. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. at *31.
The Court held that the deletion of the video for the entire day of the incident did not justify the jury spoliation jury instruction. Furthermore, the video showing the actual fall was presented to the jury. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. at *46-47. The Court found that the failure to preserve additional video footage did not irreparably deprive Plaintiff of any meaningful ability to present his claim. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. at *47-48. The issuing of the spoilation jury instruction was an abuse of the Trial Court’s discretion. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. at *48.
The preservation of electronic evidence is a challenge for many attorneys. Litigants cannot preserve “everything” in a company at the first sign of litigation. The trick is preserving what is relevant. This becomes a question on the scope of discovery.
Could the Defendants in this case have copied a half hour before the incident and a half hour after? Sure. Some companies might do that. Others might not. Whether that is reasonable would turn on the facts of the case on whether that data needed to be preserved.
Texas lawyers know a few things about spoliation. First, it is based in evidence, opposed to a cause of action. Second, Judges should not let the facts over data preservation be presented to the jury to avoid any prejudicial effect. If there is an actual issue of spoliation, then the Court must determine the remedy before going to the jury.
A Plaintiff brought a motion for tortious spoliation of evidence for the alleged destruction of a native file report after the duty to preserve triggered.
The Defendants produced the written report, but the native file and its metadata were gone. Raines v. College Now Greater Cleveland, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75373, 10-11 (N.D. Ohio June 3, 2014).
The Defendants brought a motion to dismiss and argued the Plaintiff could not bring a claim for spoliation of evidence, because the Plaintiff could not show her case was “disrupted.” Raines, at *10.
(5) damages proximately caused by the defendant’s acts.
The Court held the Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a claim to survive a motion to dismiss, even though she was not clear on damages. The Court stated the Plaintiff only had the physical document, but not the metadata, which the Plaintiff claimed had independent value. Raines, at *11.
The Court denied the Defense motion and stated, “We will later sort through whether any loss of metadata has caused damage.” Id.
Let’s be frank: You want the metadata. Metadata can contain who created the document, edited it last, who printed it, and track changes. Stating metadata has “independent value” is putting it mildly when given only a physical copy of the document.
The “independent value” of metadata should be explained to a Judge in an affidavit by an expert. There are different types of metadata, with substantive and embedded being more likely to have relevant information than system metadata. I cannot help but think system metadata would be needed in a forensic examination to determine who destroyed a file, but I am not a forensic expert.
Does metadata have independent value? You bet. Should a lawyer argue that on their own to a judge? No. Retain an expert to explain the technical issues on why the information is important and how not having it negatively impacts analysis to determine the truth in the lawsuit. Additionally, explain what must be done to determine how the data was destroyed.
How do you know there is a duty to preserve?
When two managing officers involved in the termination of an employee are repeatedly asked by an attorney for their electronic calendars, including a letter threatening an EEOC complaint if there was not an amicable resolution, and then followed by formal discovery requests.
How do you get sanctions?
When after repeated statements that the Defendants did not have electronic calendars, one of the managing officers states in deposition that he kept a daily electronic calendar and routinely deleted the entries after the date has passed. Making matters more complicated, the witness admitted “he was told a week before his deposition to retain his calendars but he nonetheless continued his practice of deleting” his electronic calendars. Kirgan v. Fca Llc, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51747, at *1-2 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2013).
A party must enact a litigation when it reasonably anticipates litigation, which generally requires the suspension of its document destruction policy. Kirgan, at *3.
3) The prejudice that results from the breach.
Kirgan, at *3, citing Danis v USN Communications Inc., 2000 WL 1694325, at *31 (NDIL).
Case law states that sanctions must be proportionate to the offending conduct. Kirgan, at *3. A party also had to know or had reason to know that litigation was forthcoming. Kirgan, at *3 citing Morton v Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F3d 672, 681 (7th Cir 2008). Sanctions can be imposed on a finding of bad faith, willfulness, or fault. Kirgan, at *3 citing Brandt v Vulcan, Inc., 30 F3d 752, 756 (7th Cir 1994).
The Court held that the Defendants breached their duty to preserve the daily calendars and that the Plaintiff had been prejudiced by the destruction of the electronic evidence. Moreover, the Court found that the Defendants’ conduct was misleading and intentional. Kirgan, at *5.
I do not believe that the sanction of default is warranted. I do, however, believe that stern measures are called for. The Defendant’s direct and vicarious conduct was willful and intentional, and it cannot be condoned.
The Court noted that the destruction of the calendars was the only reported instance of misconduct.
However, that misconduct included untruthful statements that the calendars did not exist, with one of the parties deleting the ESI. Kirgan, at *6.
This conduct created a “clear impression that [the officer] had deliberately decided to thwart Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain them.” Id.
1. The jury is to be given a spoliation instruction, which permits the jury to draw a negative inference from its failure to preserve and its destruction of relevant documents.
2. Defendant may not use — at summary judgment or at trial — any evidence or argument that may have been contained in Borsdorf’s destroyed calendars, unless that evidence or argument is corroborated by other documentary evidence or by testimony of witnesses independent of the Defendant.
3. Defendant shall pay attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff for the fees his counsel incurred in preparing this motion. That amount shall be doubled, in a rough effort to compensate Plaintiff for the efforts that were made in her counsel’s attempts to obtain the calendars.
Judges do not like lies. Attorneys have a duty of candor to the Court and witnesses take an oath to tell the truth. Judges get upset when anything less than the truth is told.
Complying with the duty to preserve is rightly a hot topic in litigation. Attorneys must conduct detailed interviews with their clients to determine what technology is used in the ordinary course of business. Does the client text? Is there data outside the firewall in a “cloud,” such as a Google Calendar?
Attorneys must develop a preservation strategy after determining the relevant sources of information. Telling a custodian to “stop deleting” is a good first step, but the relevant data has to be collected in a defensible manner. This could range from content information management systems “locking down” the custodians’ communications, which are then exported for analysis and review. Other options include collecting data directly from the computers with computer forensic experts. Regardless of the strategy used, it is advisable to not allow custodians to self-collect their own data.
In a dispute involving claims of monopolistic violations regarding booking A-list DJ’s at nightclubs, the Defendants did not take any steps to preserve or review text messages on an iPhone for relevance that was lost. Christou v. Beatport, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9034, 36-39 (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2013).
While the ensuing motion practice did not have the fist-pumping energy of an A-list nightclub, the issue of spoliation sanctions is worthy of a late night freestyle eDiscovery rap battle.
The Plaintiffs served a litigation hold letter on the Defendants at or about the same time as the beginning of the lawsuit in December 2010, which identified text messages as ESI to preserve. Christou, at *36-37.
The Plaintiffs sought an adverse jury instruction for the failed preservation of text messages, because 1) the Defendants took no steps to preserve the text messages on the Defendant’s iPhone; 2) Defendants did not disclose any text messages in their May 2011 discovery responses; and 3) The Defendant claimed that he lost his iPhone in August 2011, thus also loosing and any text messages saved on it. Christou, at *37.
The Defendants argued whether any relevant text messages were lost pertaining to the litigation was “sheer speculation,” because the Defendant did not use text messages to book DJ’s. Id.
The Defendants also argued that they “responded fully” to the May 19, 2011 discovery, thus “showing” that there were no responsive text messages. Id.
The Court stated that the Defendant’s claim he “did not use texting to book DJ’s is hardly proof that his text messages did not contain relevant evidence.” Id.
The Court turned up the volume on the fact that just because the Defendants stated that they “found no responsive text messages,” did not address whether defense counsel reviewed the Defendant’s text messages and determined that the text messages “contained nothing of relevance.” Christou, at *37-38.
The Court explained that spoliation sanctions are proper when “(1) a party has a duty to preserve evidence because it knew, or should have known, that litigation was imminent, and (2) the adverse party was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence.” Christou, at *38, citing Turner v. Public Serv. Co. of Colorado, 563 F.3d 1136, 1149 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013, 1032 (10th Cir. 2007)).
The Court found the Defendants had a duty to preserve the text messages, which they did not do. Christou, at *38.
Moreover, the Court held, “Those text messages, few as they might have been, should have been preserved and either provided to the plaintiffs or potentially made the subject of further proceedings before the Court.” Id.
The Court had no reason to believe the phone was not lost on accident or the failure to preserve was just negligent. Christou, at *38-39.
A commercial party represented by experienced and highly sophisticated counsel cannot disregard the duty to preserve potentially relevant documents when a case like this is filed. However, an adverse jury instruction is too harsh and is unwarranted as a sanction for the negligent “spoliation” of evidence in the circumstances presented here.
The Court mixed the following sanction: The Plaintiffs could introduce the litigation hold letter and that the Defendants failed to preserve the text messages. Id. Further, the Plaintiffs could “argue whatever inference they hope the jury will draw.” Id. Additionally, the Defendants could offer admissible evidence to explain the loss and argue that no “adverse inference should be drawn.” Id.
The duty to preserve and mobile devices can potentially give lawyers serious stress. Attorneys should discuss with clients how they use technology, how they communicate and involve consultants in ensuring the preservation of relevant ESI. Additionally, if a litigation hold letter specifies a type of data, it is advisable to conduct a reasonable investigation whether any relevant information exists on the identified media.
Litigation hold letters can be multiple page lists including every possible form of ESI known to man. While no one wants data to go missing, or to not include a possible data source, it is always a good plan for parties to meet and confer over possible data sources to narrow what data needs to be preserved and collected.
Finally, it is important to remember data can exist in multiple locations. While a smartphone such as an iPhone might be lost, the text messages might be backed-up on a computer when the iPhone was synced. It is also worth investigating whether the text messages were iMessages that possibly could be backed-up in iCloud.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.