Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180227_0001152.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:58:44+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Brewer v. BNSF Railway Co.
Brewer v. BNSF Railway Co.
On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff David Brewer (“Mr. Brewer”) filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”) wrongfully terminated his employment on or about December 17, 2012, in retaliation for his engaging in a protected activity, in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 20109, and that BNSF hindered or interfered with Mr. Brewer's record supporting termination, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-703. (Doc. 1). The parties in this action have undergone extensive motions practice, mostly related to the discovery of BNSF's electronically stored information (“ESI”). On February 14, 2018, the District Court ordered that Mr. Brewer's most recent Amended and Renewed Motion to Permit Discovery and Compel Production of Noncustodial ESI be denied. (Doc. 280).
On January 12, 2018, Mr. Brewer filed the instant Motion for Discovery Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. (Doc. 261). The motion argues in sum that BNSF intentionally and purposefully destroyed or otherwise spoliated evidence related to Mr. Brewer's claims, and requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor as a sanction for BNSF's conduct. On January 26, 2018, BNSF filed its Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions. (Doc. 265). Mr. Brewer filed his Reply brief on February 9, 2018. (Doc. 274). The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication.
While a party may destroy evidence in the ordinary course of business based on its document retention policies, such destruction is prohibited if the party is “on notice” of potential litigation. United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 P.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002).
Generally, three types of sanctions exist for the spoliation of evidence: (1) judgment against the party who is responsible for the spoliation; (2) the exclusion of evidence or witness testimony corresponding to the evidence destroyed; or (3) an adverse jury instruction. Kopitar v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 266 F.R.D. 493, 499-500 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing various opinions by the Ninth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and United States Supreme Court). Sanctions may only be imposed if “a party knew, or reasonably should have known, that the spoliated evidence was potentially relevant to a claim.” Peschel v. City of Missoula, 664 F.Supp.2d 1137, 1141 (D. Mont. 2009) (citing Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318, 1329 (9th Cir.1993)).
Importantly, the most drastic sanction of default judgment requires a court to find “willfulness, fault, or bad faith” on the part of the party who destroyed the evidence. Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 20109
 § 39
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.