Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fry's Electronics, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65837
W.D. Wash.2012Background
- Plaintiffs moved for sanctions for spoliation and failure to appear for deposition (Dkt. #142).
- Discovery requests in Dec 2011 sought devices, A-Team lists, and MOPARs from Renton store under Squires’ tenure; motion to compel followed.
- Court granted part of the motion to compel; plaintiffs alleged defendant destroyed relevant evidence.
- Court recognized spoliation standards and held duty to preserve arose when evidence may be relevant (May 24, 2007) following Lam/EEOC references.
- Defendant destroyed two Renton store hard drives in 2009; argued material not unique, but evidence showed potential relevance not preserved.
- Court grants sanctions short of terminating sanctions, authorizing adverse inference on sales-justification evidence and broad leeway on missing-drive evidence; seals granted on certain exhibits and amended case management order issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spoliation occurred and duty to preserve was triggered | Lam was harmed by destruction of relevant documents | No timely notice or preservation duty shown | Duty to preserve triggered; spoliation found on hard drives |
| Appropriate sanction for spoliation | Dispositive relief warranted to deter misconduct | Less drastic sanctions sufficient | Adverse inference and limited leeway, not terminating sanctions |
| Impact of destruction on liability/pretext issues | Destruction undermines pretext arguments against Lam | Some materials not proven destroyed or relevant | Adverse inference allowed; not a broad liability-stripping remedy |
| Sealing and case management implications | Sealed personnel records should be allowed; manage discovery | Sealing of non-parties’ personnel records granted; amended case management order issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP, 590 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2009) (spoliation defined; duty to preserve evidence; inherent power to sanction)
- In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litig., 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse-inference sanctions; careful tailoring to avoid dumping evidence gaps)
- Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (duty to preserve; balancing factor for sanctions; potential adverse inference)
- U.S. v. $40,955.00 in U.S. Currency, 554 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (sanctions for spoliation; inherent powers of district court)
- Alexander v. Nat’l Farmers Org., 687 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1982) (illustrative discussion on irrelevance of destroyed documents)