Lopez v. Apple, Inc., 4:19-cv-04577

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Apple, alleging that Siri sometimes recorded and later shared their private conversations ("false triggers") without consent, in ways that violated privacy rights and related statutes.
Plaintiffs assert Apple continued deleting relevant Siri data even after the lawsuit was filed, contrary to the obligation to preserve evidence potentially relevant to the case.
The allegedly deleted data includes both audio and related metadata for millions of Siri requests, of which only a small, limited subset (used for "grading" Siri responses) was retained.
Plaintiffs sought sanctions for spoliation, contending that Apple's deletion policies destroyed critical evidence needed for class certification, damages, and proof of their claims.
Apple maintained that its retention and deletion policies were standard, and argued that the Plaintiffs' discovery requests were overly broad and burdensome, also asserting the data was not relevant or necessary.
The District Court considered whether Apple’s continued deletion of data violated its preservation obligation and whether the lost evidence prejudiced Plaintiffs’ case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to Preserve Siri Data	Apple had a duty to preserve all potentially relevant Siri data after the lawsuit’s commencement.	Duty did not arise for all Siri data; only limited, relevant data needed preservation.	Apple’s duty to preserve relevant Siri data started upon being served with the complaint.
Relevance of Deleted Siri Data	The data was central to class claims, damages, and proof of privacy violations.	The data was mostly irrelevant or overly voluminous; retained sample data sufficed.	Deleted Siri data was relevant and critical to Plaintiffs’ claims.
Prejudice from Deletion	The loss of data prevents proof of critical issues (class size, damages, standing, intent).	Any prejudice is minimal; sample data is adequate, and much data is too voluminous to review.	Plaintiffs suffered prejudice from the loss of most Siri data.
Intentional Spoliation (Sanctions Standard)	Apple’s actions were intentional or at least grossly negligent, justifying severe sanctions.	Deletions were done per automated, neutral policies; no intent to deprive.	Reasonable minds could disagree, so the jury must decide Apple’s intent; interim sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1) imposed.

Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (willful spoliation occurs when party has notice that documents were potentially relevant to litigation)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (duty to suspend deletion policies and preserve relevant documents upon reasonable anticipation of litigation)
In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (obligation to suspend routine document destruction policy once litigation can be anticipated)