United States EEOC v. GMRI, Inc. - No. 15-20561-CIV, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181011 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2017)

Rule:

The party seeking spoliation sanctions has the burden of proof. The party seeking spoliation sanctions must prove first, that the missing evidence existed at one time; second, that the alleged spoliator had a duty to preserve the evidence; and third, that the evidence was crucial to the movant being able to prove its prima facie case or defense.

Facts:

Defendant GMRI, Inc. (aka Seasons 52) filed a summary judgment motion against Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC). In it, the defendant argued that the plaintiff has come up empty-handed in its effort to establish that defendant’s restaurants engaged in a nationwide pattern and practice of intentional age discrimination against applicants aged 40 and older. After the defendant filed its summary judgment motion, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Spoliation and Rule 37(c) Sanctions. In its sanctions motion, the plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to preserve and intentionally destroyed paper applications and interview booklets. It also alleged that defendant failed to take any steps to preserve emails sent by or to the restaurant managers involved in the very hiring decisions challenged in the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The sanctions motion seeks myriad types of spoliation sanctions.

Issue:

Should the plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court, after considering the plaintiff’s motion for spoilation and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (c) sanctions, rejected the defendant’s position that it was not under a duty to preserve documents and electronically stored information (ESI) for any location other than one restaurant. But the court declined to authorize the permissible inference type of sanction because the plaintiff had not established that the missing evidence was crucial to the movant's case or that the company acted to deprive the plaintiff of the information's use in the litigation. Also, the court held that if the plaintiff could present evidence of the purportedly destroyed and/or missing evidence to the jury, the plaintiff then could rely on that evidence and argue to the jury that the defendant acted in bad faith and that, if the jury were to agree with that plaintiff theory, then it could infer from the loss of ESI that it was unfavorable to the defendant.