As stated in my previous blog, “A Rule 37 Refresher – As Applied to a Ransomware Attack,” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) (“Rule 37”) was completely rewritten in 2015 to provide more clarity and guidance to the sanction process under the Rule.

In Jones v. Riot Hospitality Group, LLC, the Ninth Circuit makes very clear that, when the court faces a sanctions analysis based upon evidence that there is data that should have been preserved, that was lost because of failure to preserve, and that can’t be replicated, then the court has two additional decisions to make: (1) was there prejudice to another party from the loss or (2) was there an intent to deprive another party of the information. If the former, the court may only impose measures “no greater than necessary” to cure the prejudice. If the latter, the court may take a variety of extreme measures, including dismissal of the action. An important distinction was created in Rule 37 between negligence and intention.

Rule 37(e)(2) is clear that the court may impose a variety of extreme measures, including dismissal of a case if there is a violation of Rule 37 with an intent to deprive another party of the relevant information. The Jones case demonstrates this rule in action. The Jones case involves Alyssa Jones, a former waitress at a Scottsdale bar, who sued the bar’s owner-operator, Ryan Hibbert, and his company, Riot Hospitality Group, alleging Title VII violations and common law tort claims. During discovery, upon noticing an unusual pattern of time gaps in the text messages that Jones produced in discovery, along with deposition testimony that demonstrated that particular people had indeed texted with her during those gaps, the court ordered the parties to jointly retain a third-party forensic search specialist to review the phones of Jones and certain witnesses.

The court ultimately found that Jones intentionally deleted relevant text messages with co-workers from 2017 and 2018 and coordinated with her witnesses to delete messages from 2019 and 2020. The court used “reasonable inferences” to determine that it was done with the intent to deprive Riot of use of the messages in the lawsuit. The district court dismissed the case, using the five-factor test for terminating sanctions articulated in Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Nat. Beverage Distrib., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995).

The 9th Circuit found that the use of the Anheuser-Busch test was not necessary and that, to dismiss a case under Rule 37(e (2), a district court need only find that:

• Rule 37(e) prerequisites are met,
• the spoliating party acted with the intent required under Rule 37(e)(2), and
• lesser sanctions are insufficient to address the loss of the ESI.

Takeaways:

1. If you are in a spoliation dispute, make sure you have the experts and evidence to prove or defend your case.

2. When you are trying to prove spoliation, know the test. If intent to deprive is proven (with direct or circumstantial evidence), then proving prejudice is not a prerequisite to sanctions.

3. Be aware of, plan for, and enforce data preservation protocols early in your case.