Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103958
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Apple sues Samsung for patent infringement; Apple seeks an adverse inference jury instruction for spoliation.
- Samsung’s auto-delete email system mySingle with 14-day deletion policy potentially destroyed relevant emails.
- Mosaid v. Samsung previously sanctioned similar spoliation for rolling deletion and no off-switch.
- Samsung conceded preservation duties may arise when litigation is reasonably foreseeable; but did not suspend auto-delete or adequately monitor compliance.
- Litigation holds were issued late and target a large custodian pool; preserved evidence differed across custodians, with Outlook users preserving far more.
- Court finds Samsung’s preservation efforts insufficient and grants an adverse inference instruction in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to preserve arose when litigation was foreseeable | Samsung knew or should have known litigation was likely | Preservation duty arose only after complaint filed | Duty arose on Aug. 23, 2010 (pre-complaint notice) |
| Mental state required for sanctions | Conscious disregard shown by continued auto-delete | No bad faith shown; only failure to monitor | Conscious disregard established; willfulness found |
| Adequacy of the form of sanction | Adverse inference appropriate due to prejudice from spoliation | Sanctions should be limited; less drastic measures possible | Adverse inference granted in part; minimal, targeted instruction warranted |
| Relevance and impact of destroyed evidence | Emails likely contained information supporting Apple’s claims | Some destroyed material may be marginally relevant; hard to quantify impact | Evidence was relevant; spoliation prejudiced Apple |
| Scope and effectiveness of preservation efforts post-foreseeability | Samsung failed to suspend biweekly deletion and failed to monitor compliance | Efforts after 2011 complaint were adequate | Preservation efforts after foreseeability deficient; sanction appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosaid Techs. Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004) (adverse inference for spoliation of emails; rolling deletion and no off-switch)
- Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (three-part test for adverse inference; duty to preserve)
- Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec. LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (form and harshness of spoliation sanctions; tailoring remedy to conduct)
- Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1992) (inherent power to sanction for spoliation; bad faith not required)
- Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (duty to preserve exists with notice of potential relevance)
- Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. Md. 2009) (duty to preserve; sanctions available; reasonableness concerns)
- In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (sanctions for spoliation; preservation duties and remedies)