91 Cal.App.5th 1121
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- John M.M. Doe, a special-education high-school student who required constant supervision, was allegedly sexually assaulted by two other students in a school restroom; cafeteria surveillance captured moments immediately before and after the incident.
- Assistant principal Navarro reviewed the cafeteria video, prepared a brief narrative report, and forwarded it to the district risk manager; he did not save the footage and assumed security would; the video was automatically erased 14 days later.
- Plaintiffs submitted a government claim and later sued the district for negligence; during discovery they learned the video had been erased and moved for terminating and alternative evidentiary/issue/monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030.
- The trial court found the erasure negligent (not intentional), denied terminating sanctions, but imposed issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions—concluding the district had a duty to preserve the video because litigation was reasonably foreseeable.
- The district petitioned for writ relief. The Court of Appeal held the § 2023.030(f) safe-harbor does not protect a party who lost ESI while under a duty to preserve (litigation reasonably foreseeable), but remanded for reconsideration of the form/severity of sanctions because the imposed sanctions were effectively terminating.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2023.030(f) safe-harbor shields routine, good-faith erasure of ESI here | Safe-harbor doesn't apply because district should have anticipated litigation and had duty to preserve | Safe-harbor applies because no duty to preserve existed at time of erasure (litigation was only a possibility) | Safe-harbor does not apply when ESI was lost/destroyed while the party was under an obligation to preserve evidence for reasonably foreseeable (probable/likely) litigation |
| When does the duty to preserve arise for ESI? | Duty arises earlier (argued by plaintiffs: broader foreseeability) | Duty arises only when litigation is probable/likely (not mere possibility) | Duty triggers when a reasonable party would objectively foresee litigation as probable or likely; mere possibility insufficient; imminence/certainty not required |
| Does breach of Government Code § 53160 independently support an adverse presumption or harsher sanctions? | Breach creates inference of spoliation and supports sanctions | Statutory duty either does not apply or does not independently mandate sanctions here | Even assuming § 53160 applied, its breach does not independently support a spoliation inference or drastic sanctions here; adverse inference requires intentional destruction and class-of-person causation analyses |
| Were the trial court’s issue/evidentiary sanctions (which precluded key defenses) appropriate? | Plaintiffs sought terminating relief or equivalent evidentiary preclusions as necessary to cure prejudice | District argued the sanctions are draconian, effectively depriving it of any defense | Court of Appeal: sanctions may be warranted but must be tailored; remand for the trial court to reconsider form/severity and whether lesser measures can cure prejudice (petition granted in part) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (discusses spoliation, remedial sanctions and evidentiary inference for destroyed evidence)
- Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (articulates the "reasonably foreseeable" duty-to-preserve standard and rejects mere-possibility test)
- Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (rejects an "imminence/certainty" gloss and explains proper application of reasonable foreseeability)
- Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) (duty to preserve extends to period before litigation when evidence is relevant to reasonably anticipated litigation)
- C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist., 53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012) (explains school districts’ special relationship and heightened duty to protect/supervise students)
- New Albertson's, Inc. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (describes range of discovery sanctions, including issue and evidence preclusion)