• Lit Support Staff

Lake of e-discovery competency hurts plaintiffs’ case



Mannion v. Ameri-Can Freight Systems Incorporated, et al.

D. Ariz. January 27, 2020


Why This Case Is Important

Not knowing the requirements for spoliation sanctions under 37(e), and not properly filing a motion for discovery sanctions, are just two normal e-discovery practices that were missed in this case, showcasing the need for better e-discovery competency by legal practitioners.


Overview

In this case, the parties included a permissive adverse jury instruction within the proposed jury instructions based on the defendants’ alleged spoliation of data. From the start of e-discovery to after the discovery deadlines elapsed more than a year later, the parties never brought to the court any discovery disputes. But the plaintiffs included an adverse inference instruction within the proposed jury instructions. The plaintiffs accused the defendants of failing to “preserve and produce a variety of pieces of evidence, including the logbooks of Defendant.” Midway through the trial, a defendant found the missing log books based on the defendants changing “some of its personnel responsible for maintaining corporate records, and… the new personnel had somehow been able to locate the logbooks.”


Ruling:


Rejected Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions. The court ruled that the Plaintiffs’ never presented to the jury any evidence that alleged spoliated evidence “had been produced, lost, and/or destroyed and didn’t call any witnesses to address those subjects".


No Motions to Compel Production. The court held this approach was improper. The court explained, “Plaintiffs did not file any motions to compel, motions for sanctions, or other discovery-related motions during the two-plus years of pretrial proceedings in this case. Instead, the Plaintiffs treated spoliation like a run-of-the-mill fact issue to be resolved by the jury.”


Plaintiffs Cited Wrong Legal Standard. Among the numerous mistakes plaintiffs made in bringing this spoliation claim, the plaintiffs did not even cite the right standard for spoliation sanctions under Rule 37(e), citing only an Arizona state court case rather than citing federal law.


What did you think of this ruling? Visit this page to find out how we can help you with your next case!

0 views

GET IN TOUCH

We'd love to hear from you

  • Email
  • LS 365 Facebook
  • LS 365 Twitter
  • LS 365 Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • LS 365 Youtube

Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 8:00 pm PST | Sat/Sun - Email Only | Toll Free 866.837.6823 | info@litsupport365.com 
15333 Culver Drive, #340-2009 Irvine, CA 92604

recent blogs

LS 365

POWERED BY

LIT SUPPORT 365

© 2016-2020 designed by Lit Support 365 - LS365 Corporation doing business as Lit Support 365

DISCLAIMER: LIT SUPPORT 365 IS NOT A LAW FIRM. THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE AND ANY BROCHURES IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. WE WORK WITH ATTORNEYS, LAW FIRMS, GENERAL COUNSEL AND LITIGATION SUPPORT COMPANIES LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY.  IF YOU ARE SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE, PLEASE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY.