Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311

Rambus holds DRAM-related patents and pursued a strategy combining licensing and litigation targeting SDRAM manufacturers, including Micron.
Rambus adopted a document-retention policy in mid-1998 directed to being ready for litigation, while encouraging preservation of key documents that could support Rambus' position.
Destruction of Rambus email backups began in 1998 with extensive shredding in 1998 and 1999, and outside counsel files were ordered purged in 1999.
Micron filed a declaratory judgment action in Delaware in 2000; Rambus later faced parallel actions in California; the Delaware court found spoliation and imposed a dispositive sanction.
The district court held Rambus's patents unenforceable due to spoliation, while also addressing privilege piercing, and denied Rambus's transfer motion; this appeal follows.
This opinion affirms spoliation, vacates the dismissal sanction, and remands for further consideration on bad faith and prejudice, while also addressing privilege and transfer rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rambus spoliated evidence	Micron contends Rambus destroyed discoverable materials after a duty arose.	Rambus argues destruction followed a legitimate policy, not spoliation.	Spoliation established; district court affirmed
Whether the district court properly sanctioned Rambus's spoliation	Dismissal was an appropriate dispositive sanction for bad faith destruction.	Less drastic sanctions or other remedies should apply; dismissal was improper.	Sanction vacated and remanded for reevaluation of bad faith/prejudice and sanctions
Whether the attorney-client privilege could be pierced by the crime-fraud exception	Privilege should yield where crime-fraud shows та intent to commit or cover up a crime.	Crime-fraud standard not satisfied; privilege should apply.	District court properly pierced privilege; affirmed
Whether the district court properly denied transfer to the Northern District of California	Transfer would prevent forum shopping and consolidate related actions.	Denial favored forum nonconveniens considerations; not an abuse of discretion.	No abuse of discretion; denial of transfer affirmed

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (U.S. 2005) (duty to preserve evidence; document-retention policies not unlawful per se)
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (duty to preserve arises when litigation is pending or reasonably foreseeable)
Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 2001) (foreseeability standard for spoliation; why destruction violates duty to preserve)
West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776 (2d Cir. 1999) (spoliation and preservation standards; broad application of duty to preserve)
Trask-Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (foreseeability and spoliation standards; factors for duty to preserve)
Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1994) (three-factor test for sanctions in spoliation cases)
Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (3d Cir. 2006) (inherent powers to sanction; standard of review for sanctions)
Roadway Express v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1980) (inherent powers and discretion in sanctions; restraint in imposing sanctions)