A recent decision in Conlan Tire Co. v. Gonzales underscores how courts evaluate spoliation and impose sanctions when litigants tamper with electronic evidence. The Eastern District of Michigan granted in part a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) after discovering that the defendant used ChatGPT to research the mechanics of permanently deleting Yahoo emails and how long they remain retrievable under a subpoena. The court rejected the defendant’s implausible explanations for his artificial intelligence queries, finding instead that his search history provided compelling evidence of intentional spoliation.
The central dispute in this matter is whether the Defendant actually signed the Plaintiff’s 2022 Non-Solicitation and Confidentiality Agreement, which the Defendant denies, alleging that an image of his signature was electronically placed on the document. After the Defendant challenged the signature’s authenticity, the parties agreed to forensic discovery of his Yahoo account, laptop, 2022 cellphone, and associated iCloud account, but the Defendant provided delayed access to Yahoo and failed to produce the cellphone or iCloud access despite previously swearing that he still possessed the phone. Although the forensic examination found no emails transmitting the signed Agreement, it revealed that shortly before the forensic discovery, the Defendant used ChatGPT to research whether Yahoo could recover permanently deleted emails, how long deleted emails remained recoverable, and whether Yahoo maintained deletion logs.
The court highlighted that the defendant’s timeline of inquiries, delayed device access, and shifting sworn statements demonstrated a conscious effort to ensure deleted messages remained out of reach. While the court stopped short of entering default judgment or issuing an adverse inference at this stage, it ordered the defendant to pay all reasonable fees and costs associated with litigating the email deletion issue. Additionally, the court expanded the forensic collection period, ordered the production of missing device credentials and external storage, and permitted targeted depositions.
For eDiscovery and litigation teams, the decision serves as a stark warning regarding digital evidence preservation and emerging tactics. It highlights that courts will closely scrutinize internet and artificial intelligence research history to uncover attempts to evade discovery obligations. The takeaway is clear: litigants must preserve electronically stored information meticulously, and any effort to manipulate data or exploit platform retention windows will result in severe financial and evidentiary penalties.
If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Nicole Gill, Chair, Managing Member CODISCOVR. With almost a decade of experience, she manages complex and high-profile eDiscovery projects and routinely navigates data and privacy protection laws across many domestic and foreign jurisdictions.
