STEINARSDOTTIR v. TRIPSCOUT, INC.
1:23-cv-01528
| D.D.C. | Jul 11, 2025Background
- Asa Steinarsdottir ("Steinars") filed suit against Tripscout, Inc. alleging direct copyright infringement for reposting and sharing her social media content without permission.
- Tripscout responded with various affirmative defenses and counterclaims (the latter dismissed earlier in the proceedings).
- During discovery, both parties accused each other of spoliation—i.e., failure to preserve or destruction of electronically stored information ("ESI") relevant to the case.
- Steinars alleged Tripscout deleted infringing social media posts (and related engagement data); Tripscout alleged Steinars failed to preserve iPhone/iMessage data and deleted potentially relevant social media interactions.
- Both parties filed motions for spoliation sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). The court reviewed both motions and found each party responsible for some spoliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation by Tripscout | Tripscout deleted posts and analytic data | Deletion complied with removal request; not spoliation | Tripscout should have preserved data; sanctions under 37(e)(1) |
| Intent for severe sanctions (Tripscout) | Tripscout acted in bad faith by deleting content | No intent to deprive; only attempted to comply | No evidence of intent; only milder sanctions imposed |
| Spoliation by Steinars | No relevant ESI lost; iPhone/iMessages not relevant | Loss hampered limitations/equitable defenses | Steinars failed to preserve ESI; sanctions under 37(e)(1) |
| Intent for severe sanctions (Steinars) | No intentional loss; mere coincidence | Suspect timing shows bad faith | Insufficient proof of intent; only lesser sanctions imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (Relevance of destroyed evidence need not be clearly ascertained by the party accused of spoliation)
- Gerlich v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 711 F.3d 161 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Litigation anticipation can trigger duty to preserve evidence before suit is filed)
- Bonds v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 801 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Broad discretion to district courts in crafting discovery sanctions)