Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
348 F. Supp. 2d 332, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25286, 2004 WL 2797536 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party has an affirmative duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence by implementing a 'litigation hold' to halt routine electronic document destruction policies as soon as litigation is reasonably foreseeable. Failure to do so, even if not done in bad faith, can warrant sanctions, including an adverse spoliation inference jury instruction.
Facts:
- MOSAID Technologies Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. were engaged in a highly technical patent dispute.
- Samsung maintained a corporate policy where its computer system automatically deleted emails on a rolling basis.
- In September 2001, MOSAID filed its patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung.
- After the litigation began, Samsung failed to suspend its automatic email deletion policy or implement any other form of 'litigation hold' to preserve potentially relevant electronic communications.
- As a direct result of the unchecked deletion policy, Samsung was unable to produce a single technical email relevant to the case during discovery.
- Samsung had previously implemented a litigation hold in a different lawsuit beginning in 2002, demonstrating its knowledge and capability of preserving electronic evidence when required.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 2001, MOSAID Technologies Inc. (plaintiff) sued Samsung Electronics Co. (defendant) for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (trial court).
- During discovery, MOSAID filed a motion for sanctions against Samsung for its failure to produce any technical emails.
- The motion was heard by a Magistrate Judge, who held several hearings on Samsung's discovery deficiencies.
- On July 7, 2004, the Magistrate Judge granted MOSAID's motion, ordering a spoliation inference jury instruction and monetary sanctions.
- On September 1, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued a second order finalizing the specific language of the jury instruction and awarding MOSAID $566,839.97 in fees and costs.
- Samsung (appellant) timely appealed the Magistrate Judge's two orders to the District Judge (this court) for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's failure to implement a 'litigation hold' on its automatic email deletion policy after litigation commences, resulting in the destruction of relevant emails, warrant a spoliation inference sanction against that party?
Opinions:
Majority - Martini, District Judge.
Yes. A party's failure to implement a 'litigation hold' after litigation commences warrants a spoliation inference sanction. The court reasoned that the duty to preserve evidence arises when a party knows or reasonably should know that litigation is foreseeable. This duty is an affirmative obligation, and a party cannot use its routine document retention policy as a defense for destroying discoverable information. Samsung's failure to halt its automatic email deletion was particularly egregious because it knew litigation had commenced, knew emails were relevant (having requested them itself), and knew how to implement a litigation hold. The court rejected Samsung's argument that a finding of bad faith or fraudulent intent is required for a spoliation inference, holding that even negligent destruction of relevant evidence can be sufficient to warrant the sanction, which serves a primarily remedial function to level the playing field for the prejudiced party.
Analysis:
This opinion is a foundational case in the law of electronic discovery, solidifying the concept of the duty to implement a 'litigation hold.' It establishes that passive inaction, such as failing to turn off an automated destruction policy, is a breach of the duty to preserve evidence. The decision lowers the culpability threshold for a spoliation inference in the Third Circuit, clarifying that bad faith is not required and that negligence can suffice. This precedent places a significant, proactive burden on corporate litigants to manage and preserve electronic data at the first sign of potential litigation, profoundly influencing corporate legal compliance and discovery practices nationwide.
Unlock the full brief for Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.