Fast v. GoDaddy.com LLC

Fast v. GoDaddy.com LLC

Opinion

ORDER

Defendants GoDaddy.com, LLC ("GoDaddy") and Thyagi Lakshmanan have filed a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and (e). Doc. 93. The motion is fully briefed (Docs. 93, 96, 101, 113, 115) and the Court heard oral arguments on December 16, 2021. For reasons stated below, the Court will grant Defendants' motion in part.¹

I. Background.

In February 2018, while Plaintiff was employed by GoDaddy, she injured her knee in a skiing accident and underwent surgery. Plaintiff alleges that she was pressured to return to work prematurely following her surgery and, as a result, developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ("CRPS"), a debilitating physical condition. Plaintiff's job later was eliminated, and she alleges that GoDaddy retained male employees with less technical skill despite its assertion that she was terminated for lacking technical [*2]  skill. Plaintiff asserts claims for sex and disability discrimination and Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") retaliation.

The periods for fact and expert discovery in this case have closed. Defendants claim that Plaintiff knowingly deleted relevant information from her electronic devices and accounts and failed to produce other relevant information in a timely fashion. They seek sanctions under Rule 37(e) for spoliation of electronically stored information ("ESI") and sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) for failure to produce relevant information.

II. Legal Standards.

A. Rule 37(e).

Rule 37(e) was completely revised in 2015 and sets the standards for sanctions arising from the spoliation of ESI. The Court will apply the rule to Defendants' spoliation claims, taking guidance from the Advisory Committee notes and recent case law.²

"Spoliation is the destruction or material alteration of evidence, or the failure to otherwise preserve evidence, for another's use in litigation." Surowiec v. Cap. Title Agency, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1005 (D. Ariz. 2011); see also Pettit v. Smith, 45 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1104 (D. Ariz. 2014). Spoliation arises from the failure to preserve relevant evidence once a duty to preserve has been triggered. Surowiec, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1005.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.