Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 77 of 139<br />
The record also supports the sanction of requiring the defendants to pay <strong>Rimkus</strong> the<br />
reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees required to identify and respond to the spoliation. The<br />
defendants agree that this sanction is appropriate. (Docket Entry No. 408 at 26). <strong>Rimkus</strong> has<br />
spent considerable time and money attempting to determine the existence and extent of the<br />
spoliation, hampered by the defendants’ inconsistent and untruthful answers to questions<br />
about internet accounts and retention and destruction practices. The defendants failed to<br />
produce documents in compliance with court orders. <strong>Rimkus</strong> also expended significant time<br />
and effort to obtain some of the deleted emails and attachments.<br />
Like an adverse inference instruction, an award of costs and fees deters spoliation and<br />
compensates the opposing party for the additional costs incurred. These costs may arise from<br />
additional discovery needed after a finding that evidence was spoliated, the discovery<br />
necessary to identify alternative sources of information, or the investigation and litigation of<br />
the document destruction itself. 35 <strong>Rimkus</strong> is entitled to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees<br />
35<br />
See, e.g., Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, No. 05 Civ.<br />
9016, 2010 WL 184312, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (awarding reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees<br />
associated with investigating the spoliation and filing the motion for sanctions); Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC<br />
v. Land O’Lakes, <strong>Inc</strong>., 244 F.R.D. 614, 636–37 (D. Colo. 2007) (requiring the defendant to pay the costs<br />
associated with the plaintiff taking a deposition and filing a motion for relief after defendant “interfered with<br />
the judicial process” by wiping clean computer hard drives); Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., No. C03-1158P, 2004<br />
WL 5571412, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004) (requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant the reasonable<br />
expenses it “incurred investigating and litigating the issue of [the plaintiff’s] spoliation”), aff’d, 464 F.3d 951<br />
(9th Cir. 2006); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (Zubulake IV), 220 F.R.D. 212, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)<br />
(ordering the defendant to “bear [the plaintiff’s] costs for re-deposing certain witnesses for the limited<br />
purpose of inquiring into issues raised by the destruction of evidence and any newly discovered e-mails”);<br />
Trigon Ins. Co. v. United States, 234 F. Supp. 2d 592, 593–94 (E.D. Va. 2002) (ordering the defendant to pay<br />
for the plaintiff’s “expenses and fees incurred in its efforts to discern the scope, magnitude and direction of<br />
the spoliation of evidence, to participate in the recovery process, and to follow up with depositions to help<br />
prepare its own case and to meet the defense of the [defendant]”). Courts finding bad-faith spoliation also<br />
often award the moving party reasonable expenses incurred in moving for sanctions, including attorneys’ fees.<br />
See, e.g., Chan v. Triple 8 Palace, <strong>Inc</strong>., No. 03CIV6048(GEL)(JCF), 2005 WL 1925579, at *10 (S.D.N.Y.<br />
Aug. 11, 2005) (“The plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of the costs, including attorneys’ fees, that they<br />
77