Mont. State Univ.-Bozeman v. Mont. First Judicial Dist. Court
426 P.3d 541
Mont.2018Background
- Breanne Cepeda sued Montana State University–Bozeman (MSU) alleging negligent hiring/supervision of Professor Shuichi Komiyama for sexual assault he allegedly committed in 2010. MSU had conducted an internal investigation in 2011 after multiple complaints.
- MSU preserved some investigative materials but did not preserve all faculty and student MSU email accounts; routine IT practices led to loss of some emails before a June 15, 2011 records-preservation notice.
- Cepeda filed suit in 2013; after extended discovery, the District Court (April 11, 2018) granted sanctions for spoliation and entered default judgment on liability against MSU under M. R. Civ. P. 37(b)-(c) and (e).
- MSU petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for supervisory control, arguing the District Court misapplied Rule 37(e) and imposed a disproportionate default sanction.
- The Montana Supreme Court granted supervisory review, concluded the District Court abused its discretion by imposing default judgment for alleged ESI spoliation (no non-speculative proof that lost emails were materially favorable or that MSU acted in bad faith), reversed that portion of the sanctions order, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervisory control was necessary | Cepeda: interlocutory review not warranted; ordinary appeal sufficient | MSU: District Court proceeding under mistake of law regarding Rule 37(e) and default sanction; immediate correction needed | Court: supervisory control appropriate—error would cause substantial injustice and ordinary appeal inadequate |
| Whether default judgment as spoliation sanction was proper under M. R. Civ. P. 37(b)-(c) and (e) | Cepeda: MSU breached duty to preserve emails and the loss irreparably prejudiced her ability to prove liability; severe sanction justified | MSU: routine IT practices led to good‑faith loss of ESI; no evidence of intent to conceal or that lost emails were materially favorable; default disproportionate | Court: abuse of discretion to impose default; duty/breach may exist but absence of non‑speculative evidence of bad faith or material prejudice makes default judgment disproportionate; remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotted Horse v. BNSF Ry. Co., 350 P.3d 52 (Mont. 2015) (railroad failed to preserve video; sanctions analysis and need for proportional remedy)
- Estate of Willson v. Addison, 258 P.3d 410 (Mont. 2011) (routine records destruction did not justify default judgment where prejudice not established)
- Stokes v. Ford Motor Co. (Stokes II), 300 P.3d 648 (Mont. 2013) (default improper where ESI loss was untimely but not willful or so prejudicial as to undermine proceedings)
- Richardson v. State, 130 P.3d 634 (Mont. 2006) (district courts have broad discretion on discovery sanctions; review for abuse of discretion)
- Peterman v. Herbalife Int'l, Inc., 234 P.3d 898 (Mont. 2010) (standards for discovery sanctions and abusing discretion)