Sanders v. University of Idaho College of Law, 634 F.Supp.3d 936

The University of Idaho Provost ordered a Climate & Culture Review (CCR) of the College of Law after multiple complaints about gender and racial bias, including complaints about Dean Mark Adams.
Consultant Jennifer Cossel interviewed 32 faculty and staff (including Sanders and other people of color); her interview notes underpinned the CCR finalized April 17, 2018.
The CCR warned that some interview concerns "could rise to the level" of discrimination and suggested referral to OCRI; contemporaneous privileged communications with counsel occurred in April 2018.
Cossel turned her interview notes to HR after the CCR was finalized; those notes were shredded roughly one week later and Defendants did not disclose the destruction until September 2020 (with written confirmation after discovery closed).
Cossel’s deposition showed she did not remember who said what, so the original notes could not be reconstructed; Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions and sought an adverse inference instruction.
The court granted the motion, finding duty to preserve, willful spoliation, relevance of the notes, timeliness of Plaintiff’s motion, and ordered the parties to propose a permissive adverse-inference jury instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to preserve evidence	CCR put UI on notice litigation was reasonably foreseeable; duty to keep notes	No obligation or says following HR SOP justified destruction	Duty attached: CCR and counsel communications gave notice; notes should have been preserved
Culpable state of mind / willfulness	Destruction after CCR and counsel contact shows notice and willfulness	Destruction followed HR SOP; no bad faith required	Willful spoliation: notice of relevance suffices; SOP doesn’t excuse destruction here
Relevance of destroyed notes	Notes contained identities, race/gender-specific statements and detail beyond CCR summary	CCR summarized content; summary sufficient	Notes were relevant; CCR summary not an adequate substitute; adverse inference presumption applies
Timeliness of spoliation motion	Motion filed after disclosure of shredding in Sept 2020; filing in limine acceptable	Plaintiff should have raised spoliation during discovery	Motion timely: Defendants only disclosed shredding late; additional discovery could not cure loss
Remedy / Sanction	Requests permissive adverse-inference instruction	Argued lesser sanctions or discovery could cure prejudice	Court ordered a permissive (discretionary) adverse-inference instruction as appropriate and least-onerous effective sanction

Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Correction, 119 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (D. Idaho 2015) (elements and remedies for spoliation sanctions)
Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1993) (court’s inherent power to sanction spoliation)
Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (destruction with notice of relevance qualifies as willful spoliation)
Akiona v. United States, 938 F.2d 158 (9th Cir. 1991) (adverse inference may be drawn from destroyed evidence)
United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2002) (when duty to preserve arises pre‑litigation)
Silvestri v. General Motors, 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) (duty to preserve once litigation is reasonably foreseeable)
Kronish v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998) (notice as trigger for preservation duties)
Montoya v. Orange Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 987 F. Supp. 2d 981 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (spoliation elements framework)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 888 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (spoliation raises presumption that destroyed evidence was adverse to spoliator)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 542 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (D. Idaho 2021) (pre-litigation spoliation governed by court’s inherent authority)
Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing & Fin., Inc., 268 F. Supp. 3d 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (adverse-inference instruction can ameliorate prejudice from destroyed evidence)