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

No 37(e) Spoliation Sanctions Where Video Destroyed in Ordinary Course Before Litigation Reasonably Foreseeable (Thus, Video = ESI, Not Tangible Evidence)

Download PDF

 Ball v. George Wash. Univ., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3241 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 3, 2020) (unpublished):

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs filed by the parties. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. CIR. R. 34(j). The Court has accorded the issues full consideration and determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the District Court order be affirmed.

From 2008 until 2015, Aaron Ball was a plumber at George Washington University (GW). Starting in 2013, Ball frequently asked for, and was granted, leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., the District of Columbia Family Medical Leave Act (DCFMLA), D.C. Code §§ 32-501 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. After returning to work following one leave period, Ball's supervisors confronted him with evidence that he was "loafing" during work hours and had falsified work records to cover it up. The evidence of misconduct allegedly included video footage showing that Ball was not working when and where he claimed to [*2]  have been doing so. Ball was subsequently suspended and then discharged. He filed suit, asserting ADA claims of discrimination and retaliation, see 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), discrimination and retaliation claims under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), see D.C. Code § 2-1402.11(a), and retaliation and wrongful -interference-with-leave claims under the FMLA, see 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a). In addition, because, during discovery, GW failed to produce some of the video footage on which it relied, Ball moved for sanctions under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(e). In two thorough and well-reasoned orders, the district court denied Ball's sanctions motion and granted GW's summary judgment motion. Ball now appeals.

Under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court may sanction a party "[i]f electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery." FED. R. CIV. P. 37(e). Ball had the burden to establish that GW lost or destroyed the video footage at issue once a duty to preserve it attached. See Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos., 62 F.3d 1469, 1478 (D.C. Cir. 1995). We review the district court's factual findings underlying its denial for clear error. Id. at 1475-76. The district court reviewed the evidence [*3]  and concluded that the footage was automatically deleted before Ball filed his EEOC complaint, the only event Ball suggested created a duty to preserve the footage. Ball has not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred in making this finding. Nor was the district court obliged to wait until it decided the already fully briefed summary judgment motion to rule on the sanctions motion, as Ball now suggests. Consequently, we find no error in the district court's denial of Ball's sanctions motion.

***

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

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