Spoliation, Not Speculation: Good Faith in Evidence Destruction Claims

http://ow.ly/aVccL

An article by Chris Marzetti, Esq. posted on the Applied Discovery website.

This article discusses factors that the courts will take into account in deciding whether a motion for sanctions for spoliation should be granted.

The article states, "Courts may look to a number of things as evidence of good faith in discovery to counter an opposing party’s claim for sanctions. One court in Alabama recently pointed to a party’s use of an e-mail archiving system and of document review technology as measures sufficient to defeat a claim of spoliation."

The article cites the referenced Alabama case, "Danny Lynn Electrical & Plumbing, LLC v. Veolia Es Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., No. 2:09cv192-MHT (WO), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62510 (M.D. Ala. May 4, 2012)" and provides a link to the opinion.  The court determined that spoliation sanctions should be granted only when there is intentional destruction or concealment of evidence.  The article further states, "The court found that the plaintiff’s argument rested upon not actual proof, but rather “speculation that critical evidence was in fact lost or destroyed.” It ruled there was no evidence the defendants permanently deleted any e-mails, aside from a few “accidentally deleted due to a computer virus or other unforeseen circumstance.” The court determined that the defendant’s use of a monthly archive system ensured the preservation of e-mail on backup tapes. Notably, the court also referred to the defendants’ purchase of “expensive document review technology” and an e-discovery database."