Sekisui American Corp. v. Hart
2013 WL 4116322, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115533, 945 F. Supp.2d 494 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party willfully or grossly negligently destroys electronically stored information (ESI) after the duty to preserve has attached, relevance and prejudice to the innocent party may be presumed for the purpose of issuing an adverse inference jury instruction, even without a showing of actual prejudice.
Facts:
- Sekisui America Corporation (Sekisui) acquired America Diagnostica, Inc. (ADI) from Richard Hart and Marie Louise Trudel-Hart (the Harts) in 2009.
- The stock purchase agreement included representations and warranties from the Harts that ADI complied with federal regulations, had sufficient facilities, and its products were without material defects.
- On October 14, 2010, Sekisui sent the Harts a Notice of Claim, signaling its intent to sue for breach of contract because it believed the Harts had violated the representations in the agreement.
- In March 2011, Dicey Taylor, ADI's head of Human Resources, directed Northeast Computer Services (NCS), Sekisui’s IT vendor, to permanently delete Richard Hart’s email files to free up server space, despite NCS's recommendation against it.
- In October 2011, Taylor also instructed NCS to permanently delete the email files of Leigh Ayres, an ADI employee responsible for FDA compliance, with apparent approval from ADI's then-President, Kevin Morrissey.
- Sekisui did not institute a formal litigation hold until January 2012, fifteen months after sending the Notice of Claim, and failed to notify NCS of this duty until July 2012.
- Richard Hart is unable to testify or be deposed in this action due to a cognitive disorder.
Procedural Posture:
- Sekisui America Corporation and Sekisui Medical Co., Ltd. filed a breach of contract action against Richard Hart and Marie Louise Trudel-Hart in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- During discovery, Sekisui revealed that electronically stored information (ESI) in the form of email files belonging to certain ADI employees, including Richard Hart, had been deleted or were otherwise missing.
- The Harts requested that the District Court impose sanctions on Sekisui for the spoliation of evidence, specifically an adverse inference jury instruction.
- The District Court referred this dispute to Magistrate Judge Maas.
- Magistrate Judge Maas issued a written decision on June 10, 2013, in which he declined to issue any sanctions, finding that the Harts failed to show any prejudice resulting from the destruction of the ESI.
- The Harts filed objections to the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Decision declining to impose sanctions for the destruction of ESI.
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 seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence, where the destruction was willful or grossly negligent, need to demonstrate actual prejudice, or may relevance and prejudice be presumed?
Opinions:
Majority - Shira A. Scheindlin
No, a party seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence due to willful or grossly negligent destruction does not need to demonstrate actual prejudice; instead, relevance and prejudice may be presumed. The court applied the Second Circuit's three-part test from Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp.: (1) a duty to preserve the evidence; (2) a culpable state of mind in destroying it; and (3) relevance of the destroyed evidence. Sekisui indisputably had a duty to preserve after the Notice of Claim. The destruction of Hart's and Ayres' ESI was willful because it was intentional, regardless of whether there was a malevolent purpose, as Sekisui's employee, Taylor, knowingly directed the permanent deletion despite recommendations against it. Furthermore, Sekisui's failure to timely implement a litigation hold for fifteen months and its subsequent six-month delay in notifying its IT vendor constituted gross negligence. The court clarified that when evidence is destroyed willfully or through gross negligence, relevance is presumed because such destruction implies the evidence was unfavorable to the spoliator. Similarly, prejudice is presumed because the innocent party is deprived of potentially case-altering evidence. The Magistrate Judge's decision to deny sanctions based on the Harts' failure to prove prejudice was contrary to law and clearly erroneous because it improperly shifted the burden to the innocent party, incentivizing spoliation. Therefore, the court reversed the Magistrate Judge's order, granted the Harts' request for an adverse inference jury instruction, and imposed monetary sanctions on Sekisui.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it clarifies and reinforces the standards for imposing spoliation sanctions in federal courts, particularly regarding electronically stored information (ESI). It firmly establishes that willful or grossly negligent destruction of evidence, even without malevolent intent, shifts the burden of proving prejudice to the spoliating party, rather than requiring the innocent party to prove what was lost. This ruling provides a strong deterrent against cavalier approaches to litigation holds and ESI preservation, emphasizing that parties cannot benefit from their own destruction of potentially relevant evidence. It is a critical precedent for future e-discovery disputes, ensuring more rigorous compliance with preservation duties.
