Opinion ID: 2801829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Sanctions Due to Spoliation.

Text: We next consider whether the district court erred in its pretrial ruling denying Ryan’s motion for sanctions based on ELW’s alleged spoliation of evidence. We see no abuse of discretion. Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The district court’s discretion will not be disturbed unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted)). Ryan had the burden of establishing spoliation by demonstrating that ELW destroyed documents and had “some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.” United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon a finding of spoliation, the district court had discretion to impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent power. Leon, 464 F.3d at 959; Fjelstad, 762 F.2d at 1338. The district court identified the proper legal framework with which to evaluate Ryan’s motion and denied the motion because the documents were irrelevant, Ryan obtained them from other sources, and the remaining claims of spoliation 22 RYAN V. EDITIONS LTD. WEST were speculative. In other words, the district court found that Ryan failed to carry her burden of showing spoliation as to some documents, and the record demonstrated that Ryan suffered no prejudice as a result of ELW’s failure to preserve other documents. These findings are adequate bases for denying Ryan’s motion. See, e.g., Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d at 1001; Akiona v. United States, 938 F.2d 158, 161 (9th Cir. 1991) (spoliation sanctions not warranted absent threshold showing of relevance).