Court Rejects 37(e), Invokes Inherent Authority to Sanction
In their Federal E-Discovery column, H. Christopher Boehning and Daniel J. Toal discuss 'Hsueh v. N.Y. State Dep't of Fin. Servs.', a decision that adds to a growing body of law supporting an application of a court's inherent power to sanction. In endorsing a circuit-specific test for the applicability of an adverse inference sanction for failure to preserve ESI, the decision may contribute to uncertainty around sanctions that Rule 37(e) was intended to remove and may reopen the circuit court split that the rule was designed to resolve.
June 05, 2017 at 02:02 PM
6 minute read
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) was intended to be the new national standard setting forth the available sanctions for failure to preserve electronically stored information (ESI). When creating the new rule, the drafters hoped to resolve the circuit court split on this issue. In particular, the drafters rejected the Second Circuit standard in favor of one that is more forgiving, especially in situations where the ESI could be restored or replaced or where there is no prejudice to the aggrieved party. Importantly, the rule also purported to restrict the inherent authority of judges to impose sanctions for the failure to preserve ESI, which has previously resulted in a number of unexpectedly punitive sanctions decisions, particularly in the Second Circuit.
Since the enactment of Rule 37(e), a number of courts have challenged the notion that a rule can limit a judge's inherent power to issue spoliation sanctions, especially when a party acted in bad faith. A recent decision from the Southern District of New York went even further. In Hsueh v. N.Y. State Dep't of Fin. Servs., 2017 WL 1194706 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2017), Senior District Judge Paul Crotty, in a notable interpretation of the rule, determined that Rule 37(e) was inapplicable when a party intentionally destroys relevant ESI with the intent to deprive another party of its use, even though the rule expressly addresses such conduct. Judge Crotty instead invoked his inherent authority to impose the sanction of an adverse inference jury instruction, a severe sanction that nonetheless would have been available to him under Rule 37(e).
Under Rule 37(e), “[i]f electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery,” then a court may consider available curative measures or sanctions under the rule. Subsection (e)(2) provides that the court may impose severe sanctions such as an adverse inference jury instruction “only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation[.]“
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2NYC Mayor Eric Adams Indicted on Public Corruption Allegations
- 3'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 4Conduct Board Urges 'Swift and Severe Punishment' for Phila. Judge's Facebook Posts
- 5What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250