In this case, STMicroelectronics, Inc. ("ST") filed a motion for case-terminating sanctions against plaintiff Rachid Smahi, alleging that Smahi engaged in misconduct by failing to preserve electronic evidence critical to the case. ST’s motion follows Smahi's alleged improper retention of trade secrets and other confidential ST documents, which were uncovered during a forensic investigation.

ST's version of events centers around the forensic examination of Smahi's devices, which revealed signs of tampering. According to ST, Smahi wiped his iPhone and computer, deleted an iCloud account, and destroyed a USB drive containing trade secret documents. ST argues that these actions were intentional and designed to hide evidence, which prompted its motion for sanctions, including a directed verdict and monetary penalties. ST contends that these actions undermined the integrity of the discovery process and prevented ST from fully assessing the scope of Smahi's alleged wrongdoing.

In contrast, Smahi acknowledges some of the deletions but provides an explanation for each event. He claims the USB drive’s damage was accidental, and that the wiping of his iMac and other deletions were unrelated to the case. Smahi contends he had no intention to destroy evidence, asserting that his actions were either prompted by concerns about potential hacking or by the company’s own requests to delete certain documents. He argues that there was no obligation to preserve the documents in question and that he had already provided all relevant information to his attorneys. His opposition includes claims that he did not understand the scope of the forensic examination and the intrusion it would entail.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) to determine whether sanctions should be imposed. Rule 37(e) allows for sanctions if electronically stored information (ESI) is destroyed in a way that cannot be restored, but requires a finding of intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in litigation for the most severe sanctions. In this case, the court found material factual conflicts regarding whether Smahi had a duty to preserve the evidence and whether his actions were intentional or accidental. The court therefore denied ST's motion for sanctions without prejudice, meaning it can be resubmitted following further factual development, including additional depositions and an evidentiary hearing.

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.