eDiscovery Daily Blog

• February 6, 2017

In Archer et. al. v. York City School District, et. al., No. 13-2826 (M.D. Pa., Dec. 28, 2016), Pennsylvania District Judge John E. Jones, III ruled that the plaintiffs had presented no evidence showing that the defendants acted with intent when they deleted the email account of the former Assistant Superintendent, nor had a duty to preserve arose prior to the deletion of the account.

Case Background

In this case brought forward in November 2013 by a group of students and parents suing the defendants to protest the decision not to renew their school’s charter based upon the performance of the school and the hardship on the city’s budget, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.  In their opposition to the summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants spoliated evidence when they deleted the email account of former assistant superintendent Perry-Cross, who retired in February 2012.  Her email account was deleted afterward, with the defendants suggesting that this may have occurred as soon as ninety days after, while the plaintiffs alleging that her emails were “purged sometime after 2012” (though they failed to provide any evidence that pointed to this timeline).

The parties agreed that the first two elements of spoliation – that the emails were within the defendants’ control and they were relevant to the claims of the instant case – were not at issue.  But, the defendants disagreed with the last two elements, arguing that the emails were deleted as a matter of course, so the defendants were not attempting to suppress evidence and further arguing that at the time the emails were deleted, there was no reasonably foreseeable duty to preserve the account.

Judge’s Ruling

With regard to intent to destroy evidence, Judge Jones stated: “Plaintiffs here have presented no factual basis whatsoever in support of their allegations that Defendants’ intended to destroy evidence helpful to Plaintiffs’ claims. Rather, the District’s policy of purging former employees’ email accounts within ninety days, and the fact that litigation did not commence until well over a year after Defendant Perry-Cross left the District and potentially over a year after the deletion occurred amounts to evidence supporting the opposite conclusion. Defendants also point to their swift and prompt reaction to turn over newly discovered evidence in the form of another District employee’s email account after previously believing it was deleted…This compilation of evidence, taken as a whole, leads the Court to conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to support their allegation that Defendants acted with intent to spoil evidence when they deleted Defendant Perry-Cross’s email account.”

With regard to the defendants’ duty to preserve, Judge Jones stated: “Plaintiffs attempt to persuade the Court that ‘[t]here can be no credible argument that the defendants were not aware that the disruption of 700-800 children and tens of millions of dollars would not produce litigation’ such that Defendants should have been on notice of their duty to preserve Defendant Perry-Cross’ email account…We disagree. Plaintiffs’ argument that by the simple act of doing their jobs, Defendants should have been on notice of litigation that would not commence until nearly a full year later does not create knowledge that litigation is ‘pending or probable.’”

Finding that the plaintiffs “have failed to establish both the third and fourth elements of spoliation”, Judge Jones found that their allegation of spoliation had no merit and granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

So, what do you think?  When did the duty to preserve data begin?  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.