{"title":"Electronic Discovery and Sanctions for Spoliation: Perspectives from the Classroom","authors":"Robert A. Weninger","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1987057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the spoliation of ESI (electronically stored evidence) in a completely non-technical way. It focuses on the law governing sanctions and not on computer technology. Professor Richard L. Marcus, the Special Reporter to the Civil Rules Advisory Committee and a primary drafter of the 2006 amendments addressing the discovery of ESI, kindly reviewed and commented on my article. He said that the piece is particularly timely because the Advisory Committee is presently considering whether to propose further amendments to address problems created by disparate positions taken by federal courts on sanctioning for spoliation. For instance, courts divide over the level of culpability required for the issuance of a serious sanction (such as an adverse inference instruction) and over requirements that the innocent party prove the relevance of the missing evidence. I focus on these differences in my discussion of two landmark 2010 sanctions decisions, Pension Committee and Rimkus, by federal district Judges Shira A. Schiendlin (author of the famous Zubulake opinions) and Lee H. Rosenthal (now Chair of the Standing Committee). Both of these judges served on the Advisory Committee during the amendment process and are widely known to be e-discovery experts. Rimkus and Pension Committee are useful background for my analysis of the teaching effectiveness of Connor v/ Sun Trust, the first spoliation decision in the casebook, Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence (by Judge Shria A. Scheindlin and Professor Daniel J. Capra), which I used in my course in Complex Litigation. Conner appears in the casebook under the heading, “What Constitutes Spoliation?” I had my students email me each day their comments on how the cases covered in class helped them learn about the spoliation of ESI. Their comments (and mine) on the teaching effectiveness of Connor are an integral part of the article. Also, I briefly refer to some of the Federal Judicial Center’s empirical research on sanctions decisions. Please see my CV for citations to my articles in which I report the results of my own empirical research. The article concludes with a discussion of the current efforts of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to whether or not to propose a rule-based approach to preservation and sanctions for spoliation.","PeriodicalId":44667,"journal":{"name":"Catholic University Law Review","volume":"61 1","pages":"775-806"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.1987057","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catholic University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1987057","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article discusses the spoliation of ESI (electronically stored evidence) in a completely non-technical way. It focuses on the law governing sanctions and not on computer technology. Professor Richard L. Marcus, the Special Reporter to the Civil Rules Advisory Committee and a primary drafter of the 2006 amendments addressing the discovery of ESI, kindly reviewed and commented on my article. He said that the piece is particularly timely because the Advisory Committee is presently considering whether to propose further amendments to address problems created by disparate positions taken by federal courts on sanctioning for spoliation. For instance, courts divide over the level of culpability required for the issuance of a serious sanction (such as an adverse inference instruction) and over requirements that the innocent party prove the relevance of the missing evidence. I focus on these differences in my discussion of two landmark 2010 sanctions decisions, Pension Committee and Rimkus, by federal district Judges Shira A. Schiendlin (author of the famous Zubulake opinions) and Lee H. Rosenthal (now Chair of the Standing Committee). Both of these judges served on the Advisory Committee during the amendment process and are widely known to be e-discovery experts. Rimkus and Pension Committee are useful background for my analysis of the teaching effectiveness of Connor v/ Sun Trust, the first spoliation decision in the casebook, Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence (by Judge Shria A. Scheindlin and Professor Daniel J. Capra), which I used in my course in Complex Litigation. Conner appears in the casebook under the heading, “What Constitutes Spoliation?” I had my students email me each day their comments on how the cases covered in class helped them learn about the spoliation of ESI. Their comments (and mine) on the teaching effectiveness of Connor are an integral part of the article. Also, I briefly refer to some of the Federal Judicial Center’s empirical research on sanctions decisions. Please see my CV for citations to my articles in which I report the results of my own empirical research. The article concludes with a discussion of the current efforts of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to whether or not to propose a rule-based approach to preservation and sanctions for spoliation.
本文以一种完全非技术的方式讨论了电子存储证据的破坏。它关注的是有关制裁的法律,而不是计算机技术。Richard L. Marcus教授是民事规则咨询委员会的特别记者,也是2006年关于ESI发现的修正案的主要起草者,他对我的文章进行了审阅和评论。他说,这篇文章特别及时,因为咨询委员会目前正在考虑是否提出进一步的修正案,以解决联邦法院在制裁破坏行为方面所采取的不同立场所造成的问题。例如,法院对发出严重制裁(例如不利推论指示)所需的罪责程度和无罪一方证明缺失证据的相关性的要求存在分歧。我在讨论2010年联邦地区法官Shira A. Schiendlin(著名的祖布拉克意见的作者)和Lee H. Rosenthal(现任常务委员会主席)作出的两项具有里程碑意义的制裁决定——养老金委员会和Rimkus时,重点讨论了这些差异。这两位法官都曾在修订过程中担任咨询委员会成员,并且是众所周知的电子证据开示专家。Rimkus和Pension Committee是我分析Connor v/ Sun Trust的教学效果的有用背景,这是案例手册《电子证据和数字证据》(由Shria . Scheindlin法官和Daniel J. Capra教授撰写)中的第一个垄断裁决,我在复杂诉讼课程中使用了它。康纳出现在案例手册的标题下,“什么构成侵权?”我让我的学生每天给我发电子邮件,评论课堂上的案例如何帮助他们了解ESI的破坏。他们(和我)对康纳的教学效果的评论是这篇文章的组成部分。此外,我简要地提及联邦司法中心对制裁决定的一些实证研究。请参阅我的简历,我在其中报告了我自己的实证研究结果。文章最后讨论了民事规则咨询委员会目前的努力,即是否提出一种基于规则的办法来保护和制裁破坏行为。