eDiscovery Daily Blog

• July 6, 2017

In Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-18-D (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017), North Carolina Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., among other rulings, denied the plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting a jury instruction in response to the defendant’s failure to preserve certain internet web browser and search histories, concluding that the plaintiff “is not entitled to a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1)” and that the plaintiff “is not entitled to an adverse jury instruction as a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2).”

Case Background

In this case involving alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff in an investor presentation, two weeks after the complaint was filed in February 2016, the defendant issued an internal litigation hold notice related to the plaintiff’s claims in this case which defined documents to include electronically-stored information and advised employees to err on the side of preservation if there was a question as to whether material qualified as documents, but did not explicitly reference internet browser histories, internet search histories, or internet sites visited.  In May 2016, approximately 120 days after the publication of the investor presentation, counsel for the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant’s counsel requesting that the defendant preserve, among other things, the “web browser histories” of individuals involved in the drafting of the January 7, 2016 presentation.  The plaintiff reiterated that request in its document requests in June 2016.

Counsel for the defendant responded that the defendant uses Google Chrome as an internet browser, which deletes web browser history after 90 days, and accordingly, the web browser history information sought in the discovery requests no longer existed and did not exist at the time of the May letter, leading to the motion filed by the plaintiff seeking “a jury instruction to mitigate the harm caused by the defendant’s failure to preserve electronically stored information.”

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Jones initially observed that “while the plaintiff states that he seeks a jury instruction to mitigate the harm caused by the defendant’s failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”), the plaintiff does not define the particular instruction sought.”  Considering Rule 37(e)(1) and Rule 37(e)(2), Judge Jones determined the following:

Observing that “the plaintiff has not established one of the threshold elements of Rule 37(e)—namely, that the lost ESI ‘cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery. . . .’”, Judge Jones stated that “other avenues of discovery are likely to reveal information about the searches performed in advance of the investor presentation. For example, the plaintiff could seek information about the internet searches performed by the individuals who prepared the investor presentation through deposition testimony.”  Judge Jones also stated that “the plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient showing of prejudice to support relief under Rule 37(e)(1). In order to impose a sanction under Rule 37(e)(1), the court must have some evidence regarding the particular nature of the missing ESI in order to evaluate the prejudice it is being requested to mitigate.”  As a result, Judge Jones determined that “the plaintiff is not entitled to a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1).”

Judge Jones also ruled that “the plaintiff has also failed to show that the defendant acted with the requisite intent to deprive him of the ESI in order to support the imposition of an adverse jury instruction under Rule 37(e)(2),” noting that “[a]t most, the circumstances indicate the ESI was lost due to the defendant’s negligence, but do not suggest the presence of intentional conduct. Negligence, however, will not support an award of sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2).”  As a result, Judge Jones determined that “the plaintiff is not entitled to an adverse jury instruction as a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2).”

So, what do you think?  Should internet histories be a standard form of ESI to be preserved in litigation?  Or does it depend on the case?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.