Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Cammarata - 688 F. Supp. 2d 598 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

Rule:

Spoliation is the destruction or the significant and meaningful alteration of evidence. Electronically stored information is routinely deleted or altered and affirmative steps are often required to preserve it. Such deletions, alterations, and losses cannot be spoliation unless there is a duty to preserve the information, a culpable breach of that duty, and resulting prejudice. Generally, the duty to preserve arises when a party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation. Generally, the duty to preserve extends to documents or tangible things (defined by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34) by or to individuals likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses. 

Facts:

Plaintiff, former employer, sued defendants, former employees, for a variety of causes arising from the employees leaving the employer and starting a competing firm. A Louisiana court had ruled in favor of the employees in a preemptive suit addressing many of the same issues. Here the court addressed the employer's motion for sanctions arising from spoliation and the parties' motions for summary judgment. The employer alleged that the former employees intentionally destroyed emails and other electronic information at a time when they were known to be relevant to anticipated or pending litigation. 

Issue:

Did the intentional destruction of the emails and other electronic information at a time when they were known to be relevant to anticipated or pending litigation amount to spoliation?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court agreed that the evidence substantiated that the employees intentionally deleted some emails and attachments after there was a duty to preserve them. However, the record also showed that there was extensive evidence available to the employer to prosecute its claims and respond to the defenses. Therefore the court concluded that the most severe sanctions were not warranted. Instead, the court decided that the jury should hear evidence of the employees' conduct and, if it found intentional spoliation, it could infer that the lost evidence would have been unfavorable to the employees. In addition, the employer was awarded its fees and costs incurred in dealing with the spoliation issue. On the merits, while the employees established the basis for preclusion under the Louisiana res judicata law, the court determined that, due to the spoliation evidence, the statutory exception to preclusion applied.