In February 2019, Ahrens filed a motion for sanctions, claiming that Winning had engaged in spoliation of evidence. This accusation was based on his alleged destruction of emails, loss of a thumb drive containing company data, and other actions intended to hinder the forensic review of his devices. Winning opposed the motion, arguing that the deletion of files was not malicious and that the lost data was not material to the case. However, Ahrens contended that Winning’s actions were deliberate attempts to conceal evidence relevant to the litigation.

The legal framework for spoliation of evidence, particularly involving electronically stored information (ESI), is outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). This rule specifies that if a party fails to preserve ESI and it cannot be restored, the court may impose sanctions, including adverse inferences, dismissal, or default judgment, depending on the circumstances. The rule requires courts to find that the party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the ESI and that the loss caused prejudice or was intentional.

Following a hearing on the matter, the court found that the four key requirements for spoliation sanctions were met in this case. The ESI, which included emails and data on Winning’s devices, was clearly relevant to the litigation. Winning had been notified of his duty to preserve the ESI and failed to do so by deleting emails and losing a thumb drive containing Ahrens' data. While the issue surrounding preservation of his iPad was less clear, the court determined that Winning’s actions regarding the emails and thumb drive showed an unreasonable failure to preserve evidence.

Ultimately, the court found that Ahrens was prejudiced by the loss of the ESI and that Winning acted with the intent to deprive Ahrens of this evidence. As a result, the court imposed sanctions, allowing Ahrens to draw adverse inferences about the missing evidence in its favor for trial. However, the court declined to award additional costs or attorney's fees associated with the spoliation motion. The court’s decision emphasized that the sanctions were sufficient to address the prejudice caused by Winning’s actions and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

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 of 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.