Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.

District Court, D. Colorado
244 F.R.D. 614, 68 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1181, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15277 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A party's duty to preserve evidence arises only when litigation is pending or reasonably foreseeable, requiring more than equivocal correspondence; however, once that duty attaches, counsel must actively monitor compliance and cannot rely solely on a 'litigation hold' directive while allowing routine data destruction policies to eliminate relevant evidence.

Facts:

Plaintiff Cache La Poudre Feeds began using the 'PROFILE' trademark for animal feed in 1991.
In 2001, Defendant Land O’Lakes began using the 'PROFILE' mark to re-brand its own animal feed products.
Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendant in April 2002 and sent a letter in June 2002 regarding the trademark, mentioning 'exposure' and a desire to resolve the situation without explicitly threatening litigation.
In May 2002, Defendant implemented a program to automatically destroy emails older than 90 days.
The parties communicated sporadically about a non-litigious resolution, but Plaintiff filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in February 2004.
After the lawsuit was filed, Defendant instituted a 'litigation hold' but continued its routine practice of wiping the hard drives of employees who left the company, including those involved in the 'PROFILE' project.
Defendant's General Counsel relied on employees to self-select documents for production and did not verify compliance or suspend the hard drive wiping policy.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff filed a complaint for trademark infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Defendant filed counterclaims for libel.
The court held a scheduling conference and set discovery deadlines.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, which the court granted in part and denied in part.
The court permitted Plaintiff to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding Defendant's document preservation and production procedures.
Following the deposition, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Relief from Discovery Violations seeking sanctions for spoliation.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the defendants commit sanctionable spoliation of evidence by maintaining automatic email deletion policies prior to the lawsuit and by failing to prevent the wiping of former employees' computer hard drives after the lawsuit commenced?

Opinions:

Majority - Magistrate Judge Shaffer

Yes, in part, regarding the post-filing conduct, because while the pre-litigation correspondence was too equivocal to trigger a duty to preserve, the defendants failed to adequately monitor preservation and suspend data destruction policies after the lawsuit began. The court first determined that the 2002 and 2003 letters from the Plaintiff were invitations to negotiate rather than threats of litigation; therefore, the Defendant had no duty to preserve evidence before the complaint was filed in 2004. Consequently, the automatic email deletion prior to 2004 was not spoliation. However, once the lawsuit was filed, the Defendant had an affirmative duty to preserve relevant evidence. The court found that the Defendant failed this duty by allowing the hard drives of 'key player' former employees to be wiped clean and by failing to verify that current employees were actually preserving relevant data. Although the court found this conduct negligent, it did not find the 'bad faith' required by the Tenth Circuit to impose an adverse inference instruction. Instead, the court ordered monetary sanctions to compensate the Plaintiff for the costs of investigating these discovery violations.

Analysis:

This decision is a significant e-discovery ruling that clarifies the timing of the 'duty to preserve.' It establishes that vague allusions to 'exposure' or business disputes do not automatically trigger a duty to preserve evidence; there must be a credible threat of litigation. Furthermore, the case underscores the proactive responsibilities of counsel. It is insufficient to merely issue a 'litigation hold' memo; counsel must actively monitor compliance, understand the client's IT infrastructure (such as backup tapes and wiping policies), and ensure that routine data destruction practices are suspended for key players. The court distinguishes between negligence (punishable by fines/costs) and bad faith (required for severe sanctions like adverse inferences), protecting parties from case-ending sanctions for mere sloppiness while still penalizing poor discovery management.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes, Inc. (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"