New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Spoliation, Inherent Power and Rule 37

Download PDF

From Gateway Senior Housing, Ltd. v. MMA Financial, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98770 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2008):

While Rule 37 represents a significant enforcement power to punish discovery misconduct, it does not represent the "universe of potential discovery abuse." Gregory P. Joseph, Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse § 26(E)(3) (4th ed. 2008). "Wrongful destruction or loss of documents or other evidence is conduct of a kind that ordinarily falls outside the scope of Rule . . . 37, but is sanctionable under the court's inherent power." Id.; see Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Engineering & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992).

"Spoliation is 'the destruction of evidence . . . or the significant and meaningful alteration of a document or instrument.'" Escobar v. City of Houston, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72706, 2007 WL 2900581, No. 04-1945, at *17 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2007) (quoting Andrade Garcia v. Columbia Med. Ctr., 996 F. Supp. 605, 615 (E.D. Tex. 1998)). When a party with an obligation to retain or preserve evidence fails to do so, and acts with culpability, a district court may impose sanctions. Escobar v. City of Houston, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72706, 2007 WL 2900581, No. 04-1945, at *17 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2007); see generally Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (providing a detailed discussion of a party's duty to preserve evidence and the district court's authority to sanction a party for willful spoliation of evidence) (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). "'The obligation to preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to the litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.'" Escobar v. City of Houston, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72706, 2007 WL 2900581, No. 04-1945, at *17 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2007) (quoting Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. at 216)).

A discretionary adverse inference instruction is the classic sanction for spoliation of evidence. Such instruction "is proper when a party has deliberately destroyed evidence or has failed to either produce relevant evidence or explain its non-production." McMillin v. State Farm Lloyds, 180 S.W.3d 183, 199 (Tex. App.-- Austin 2005) (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718, 721 (Tex. 2003)). A party seeking an adverse inference instruction or other sanction in connection with the destruction of relevant evidence must establish that the party with control over the evidence had a duty to preserve the evidence and that it was destroyed in "bad faith." King v. Ill. Cent. RR. , 337 F.3d 550, 556 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 156 (5th Cir. 2000)); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice