Opinion
07-20-2012
Pacific Business Capital Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Time Warner Cable, LLC Time Warner NY Cable, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Pacific Business Capital Corporation's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Time Warner Cable for Spoliation of Evidence [104]. The Motion was set for hearing for June 6, 2012 and taken under submission on June 5, 2012. After considering all of the papers and arguments submitted on this matter, THE COURT NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. In its Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendants Time Warner Cable, LLC and Time Warner NY Cable, LLC (collectively "Defendants") because of the alleged spoliation or destruction of work orders that Plaintiff claims are necessary for its case. The Court, however, finds Plaintiff's request without merit.
Plaintiff has entitled its Motion as Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Time Warner for Spoliation of Evidence. However, in its Motion, Plaintiff requests sanctions against both remaining Defendants, which include Defendant Time Warner Cable, LLC and Defendant Time Warner NY Cable, LLC.
Under its inherent power to control litigation, a district court may levy sanctions, including dismissal of the action, for spoliation of evidence. Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, sanctions are only appropriate when a party had some notice that the destroyed evidence was potentially relevant. See Leon, 464 F.3d at 959; United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002). Dismissal is an available sanction when "a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings." Anheuser-Busch, 69 F.3d at 348 (internal citations omitted). Before imposing the "harsh sanction" of dismissal, however, the district court must make a finding of "willfulness, fault, or bad faith." Id.
Plaintiff argues that sanctions should be imposed upon Defendants because when Plaintiff informed Defendants of its intent to sue on July 31, 2008, Defendants were then obligated to preserve all relevant evidence. Plaintiff alleges, however, that Defendants skirted their obligation and destroyed hundreds of work orders after July 31, 2008. The Court, however, finds that Plaintiff cannot meet its burden of showing that Defendants have, in fact, destroyed any of the relevant pieces of evidence. The Court finds that the facts proffered by Defendants illustrate that Defendants at the very least, did not knowingly destroy work orders once Defendants received notice of Plaintiff's intention to file the current Action.
To prove that they did not destroy documents, Defendants point to various documents, such as summary sheets, that Plaintiff alleges were destroyed but that were actually produced by Defendants to Plaintiff. On the other hand, Plaintiff offers no facts that affirmatively show Defendants' bad faith, willfulness, or fault in destroying any documents during the discovery process. Anheuser-Busch, 69 F.3d at 348 (holding that willfulness, fault, or bad faith is required for dismissal or default to be proper).
Moreover, the Court finds that the evidence primarily relied on by Plaintiff to prove the spoliation of evidence does not affirmatively show that work orders were destroyed after July 31, 2008. Rather, the Court finds that the deposition testimony relied on by Plaintiff only illustrates that certain work orders sought by Plaintiff were regularly destroyed by Defendants during the normal course of business before July 31, 2008.
The mere fact that Defendants had a business practice of regularly destroying documents only illustrates that Defendants were regularly destroying work orders prior to July 31, 2008. Without more, such practice by Defendants cannot be found to be spoliation of evidence. See Kitsap Physicians, 314 F.3d at 1001-02 (affirming the district court's finding of no spoliation when potentially relevant documents were destroyed in the defendants' normal course of business).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden to show that Defendants destroyed evidence after they received notice of litigation, and the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior, U.S. District Court Judge