Close
Enter your
text here

Email

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Grants Adoption of Model Order for Patent Case

Model orders to limit discovery for patent cases have gained popularity in various jurisdictions, including this recent order proposed in Texas.  Here’s one patent case where the defendant sought to adopt such a model order.

In DCG Sys., Inc. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C-11-03792 PSG, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011), defendant Checkpoint asked the court to enter a version of the model order. (The proposed version differed from the model order in the number of keywords and custodians and on an issue of metadata.) The court granted defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff DCG objected to the entry of the order. It argued that since this was a case between competitors, and not a case brought by a nonpracticing entity (an “NPE,” or sometimes called a “patent troll”), the discovery would be improperly impeded by the model order’s limitations on email discovery.

NPE or patent troll cases often involve asymmetrical discovery – the plaintiff has few documents but the defendant has many. And some commentators have proposed that the model eDiscovery order seeks to reduce the ill-effects of this asymmetry. In this case plaintiff argued that it would need discovery on legitimate issues that may have arisen with an actual competitor, e.g., whether defendant copied plaintiff’s technology and whether plaintiff was entitled to an injunction. Plaintiff’s argument presupposed that the model order’s limitations would cut into the scope of that purported legitimate discovery.

The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments. It found that: (1) nothing in the model order or the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit’s speech unveiling the order suggested that it was intended only for NPE cases, and (2) there was no reason to believe that non-NPE (competitor) cases presented less compelling circumstances in which to impose reasonable restrictions on the timing and scope of email discovery.

The court also addressed the notion that the model order would help only in NPE cases or cases involving asymmetrical eDiscovery. It observed that the model order could have double the benefit in competitor cases. If using the model order to relieve the burden on the producing party in an NPE case was a good thing, then using it in a suit between competitors benefit both sides and be twice as good.

So, what do you think?  Are model orders to limit discovery a good idea?  If so, should they apply to other types of cases? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Practical eDiscovery Blog, by Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP.

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

eDiscovery Best Practices: Could This Be the Most Expensive eDiscovery Mistake Ever?
 

Many of you have Android phones.  I do, as well.  As you may know, Android is Google’s operating system for phones and Android phones have become extraordinarily popular.

However, as noted in this Computerworld UK article, it may be a failure in searching that ironically may cost Google big time in its litigation with Oracle over the Android operating system.

Google is currently involved in a lawsuit with Oracle over license fees associated with Java.  Oracle acquired Java when it purchased Sun Microsystems and many companies license Java.  Java forms a critical part of Google’s Android operating system and Google has leveraged free Android to drive mobile phone users to their ecosystem and extremely profitable searches and advertising.  Android has been so successful for Google that a loss to Oracle could result in billions of dollars in damages.

To cull down a typically large ESI population, Google turned to search technology to help identify potentially responsive and potentially privileged files.  Unfortunately for Google, a key email was produced that could prove damaging to their case.  The email was written by Google engineer Tim Lindholm a few weeks before Oracle filed suit against Google. With Oracle having threatened to sue Google for billions of dollars, Lindholm was instructed by Google executives to identify alternatives to Java for use in Android, presumably to strengthen their negotiating position.

"What we've actually been asked to do (by Larry and Sergey) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," the email reads in part, referring to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. "We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."

Lindholm added the words “Attorney Work Product” and sent the email to Andy Rubin (Google’s top Android executive) and Google in-house attorney Ben Lee.  Unfortunately, Lindholm’s computer saved nine drafts of the email while he was writing it – before he added the words and addressed the email to Lee.  Because Lee's name and the words "attorney work product" weren't on the earlier drafts, they weren't picked up by the eDiscovery software as privileged documents, and they were sent off to Oracle's lawyers.

Oracle's lawyers read from the email at two hearings over the summer and Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, indicated to Google's lawyers that it might suggest willful infringement of Oracle's patents.  Google filed a motion to "clawback" the email on the grounds it was "unintentionally produced privileged material." Naturally, Oracle objected, and after a three-month legal battle, Alsup refused last month to exclude the document at trial.

How did Google let such a crucial email slip through production?  It’s difficult to say without fully knowing their methodology.  Did they rely too much on technology to identify files for production without providing a full manual review of all files being produced?  Or, did manual review (which can be far from perfect) let the email slip through as well?  Conceivably, organizing the documents into clusters, based on similar content, might have grouped the unsent drafts with the identified “attorney work product” final version and helped to ensure that the drafts were classified as intended.

So, what do you think?  Could this mistake cost Google billions?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

 

eDiscovery Rewind: Eleven for 11-11-11
 

Since today is one of only 12 days this century where the month, day and year are the same two-digit numbers (not to mention the biggest day for “craps” players to hit Las Vegas since July 7, 2007!), it seems an appropriate time to look back at some of our recent topics.  So, in case you missed them, here are eleven of our recent posts that cover topics that hopefully make eDiscovery less of a “gamble” for you!

eDiscovery Best Practices: Testing Your Search Using Sampling: On April 1, we talked about how to determine an appropriate sample size to test your search results as well as the items NOT retrieved by the search, using a site that provides a sample size calculator. On April 4, we talked about how to make sure the sample set is randomly selected. In this post, we’ll walk through an example of how you can test and refine a search using sampling.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Your ESI Collection May Be Larger Than You Think: Here’s a sample scenario: You identify custodians relevant to the case and collect files from each. Roughly 100 gigabytes (GB) of Microsoft Outlook email PST files and loose “efiles” is collected in total from the custodians. You identify a vendor to process the files to load into a review tool, so that you can perform first pass review and, eventually, linear review and produce the files to opposing counsel. After processing, the vendor sends you a bill – and they’ve charged you to process over 200 GB!! What happened?!?

eDiscovery Trends: Why Predictive Coding is a Hot Topic: Last month, we considered a recent article about the use of predictive coding in litigation by Judge Andrew Peck, United States magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York. The piece has prompted a lot of discussion in the profession. While most of the analysis centered on how much lawyers can rely on predictive coding technology in litigation, there were some deeper musings as well.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?: Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? OK, it’s an old song by Chicago (back then, they were known as the Chicago Transit Authority). But, the question of what time it really is has a significant effect on how eDiscovery is handled.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Message Thread Review Saves Costs and Improves Consistency: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. But, in ESI review, it can be even worse when you get a different result. Most email messages are part of a larger discussion, which could be just between two parties, or include a number of parties in the discussion. To review each email in the discussion thread would result in much of the same information being reviewed over and over again. Instead, message thread analysis pulls those messages together and enables them to be reviewed as an entire discussion.

eDiscovery Best Practices: When Collecting, Image is Not Always Everything: There was a commercial in the early 1990s for Canon cameras in which tennis player Andre Agassi uttered the quote that would haunt him for most of his early career – “Image is everything.” When it comes to eDiscovery preservation and collection, there are times when “Image is everything”, as in a forensic “image” of the media is necessary to preserve all potentially responsive ESI. However, forensic imaging of media is usually not necessary for Discovery purposes.

eDiscovery Trends: If You Use Auto-Delete, Know When to Turn It Off: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f), adopted in 2006, is known as the “safe harbor” rule. While it’s not always clear to what extent “safe harbor” protection extends, one case from a few years ago, Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metrop. Trans. Auth., D.D.C. June 2007, seemed to indicate where it does NOT extend – auto-deletion of emails.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Checking for Malware is the First Step to eDiscovery Processing: A little over a month ago, I noted that we hadn’t missed a (business) day yet in publishing a post for the blog. That streak almost came to an end back in May. As I often do in the early mornings before getting ready for work, I spent some time searching for articles to read and identifying potential blog topics and found a link on a site related to “New Federal Rules”. Curious, I clicked on it and…up popped a pop-up window from our virus checking software (AVG Anti-Virus, or so I thought) that the site had found a file containing a “trojan horse” program. The odd thing about the pop-up window is that there was no “Fix” button to fix the trojan horse. So, I chose the best available option to move it to the vault. Then, all hell broke loose.

eDiscovery Trends: An Insufficient Password Will Thwart Even The Most Secure Site: Several months ago, we talked about how most litigators have come to accept that Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) systems are secure. However, according to a recent study by the Ponemon Institute, the chance of any business being hacked in the next 12 months is a “statistical certainty”. No matter how secure a system is, whether it’s local to your office or stored in the “cloud”, an insufficient password that can be easily guessed can allow hackers to get in and steal your data.

eDiscovery Trends: Social Media Lessons Learned Through Football: The NFL Football season began back in September with the kick-off game pitting the last two Super Bowl winners – the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers – against each other to start the season. An incident associated with my team – the Houston Texans – recently illustrated the issues associated with employees’ use of social media sites, which are being faced by every organization these days and can have eDiscovery impact as social media content has been ruled discoverable in many cases across the country.

eDiscovery Strategy: "Command" Model of eDiscovery Must Make Way for Collaboration: In her article "E-Discovery 'Command' Culture Must Collapse" (via Law Technology News), Monica Bay discusses the old “command” style of eDiscovery, with a senior partner leading his “troops” like General George Patton – a model that summit speakers agree is "doomed to failure" – and reports on the findings put forward by judges and litigators that the time has come for true collaboration.

So, what do you think?  Did you learn something from one of these topics?  If so, which one?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscoveryDaily would like to thank all veterans and the men and women serving in our armed forces for the sacrifices you make for our country.  Thanks to all of you and your families and have a happy and safe Veterans Day!

eDiscovery Horrors! Does This Scare You?
 

Today is Halloween.  While we could try to “scare” you with the traditional “frights”, we’re an eDiscovery blog, so it seems appropriate to try to “scare” you in a different way.  Does this scare you?

Although the court declined to re-open the case, it found that defendant had committed discovery abuses, including failing to disclose relevant evidence and failing to issue a litigation hold; therefore, the court ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff an additional $250,000 over the previously agreed settlement amount.  The court further ordered that defendant had thirty days to furnish a copy of the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order “to every Plaintiff in every lawsuit it has had proceeding against it, or is currently proceeding against it, for the past two years” and issued an additional $500,000 sanction to be “extinguished” upon a showing of compliance.

What about this?

Even though many (but not all) of the documents were recovered (most from backup tape), the court rejected the defendant’s argument that “there can be no spoliation finding because many documents were recovered” and eventually produced, stating: "The fact that technology permits the undoing of spoliation does not change at all the fact that spoliation has occurred."

Or this?

Then, in January of this year, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”

How about this?

The court concluded based on case history that “emails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally” and found that the evidence that the defendant had authored these text messages was absent.

Scary, huh?  If the possibility of sanctions and changing court requirements keep you awake at night, then the folks at eDiscovery Daily will do our best to provide useful information and best practices to enable you to relax and sleep soundly, even on Halloween!

Of course, if you really want to get into the spirit of Halloween, click here.  This will really terrify you!

What do you think?  Is there a particular eDiscovery issue that scares you?  Please share your comments and let us know if you’d like more information on a particular topic.

Happy Halloween!

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules 'Circumstantial Evidence' Must Support Authorship of Text Messages for Admissibility

When are text messages admissible in court? Which text messages qualify as evidence, and what does it take to prove authorship of a text message?

A recent opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Koch, No. 1669-MDA-2010, 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2716 (Sept. 16, 2011), addresses these very issues in an old yet new way, perhaps setting the precedent for future cases and opening what seems to be a potential Pandora’s Box of obstacles to the use of text messages as legal evidence.

  • In Commonwealth v. Koch, a transcript of thirteen SMS text messages were submitted by the prosecution and admitted into evidence. Although these text messages had been sent from a cell phone owned by the defendant, defense objected to their admission on the grounds that no evidence substantiated the defendant’s authorship of the text messages in question.
  • In fact, witnesses had testified that other people had been seen using the cell phone. Several of the thirteen text messages referred to the defendant in the third person, which substantiated the defendant’s claim that she had not written or sent the text messages.
  • The court concluded based on case history that “emails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally” and found that the evidence that the defendant had authored these text messages was absent.
  • Ruling that the defendant’s ownership of the cell phone was not enough to prove that she had sent the messages in question, the court declared that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That evidence may come in the form of testimony from the sender or recipient, testimony of witnesses to the creation of the correspondence, or even “contextual clues” in the message itself.

Where written correspondence may be subjected to questioning (e.g., signatures can be forged or letterhead copied), eDiscovery materials that clearly come from a given email account or cell phone source have been historically less open to scrutiny.  However, since cell phones and even email accounts may be shared (or hacked), this could leave room for argument, as in this case, that the correspondence in question did not originate with the party who appears to have sent it.

In one respect, applying the old standard of evidence to new ESI materials, such as text messages might make sense. On the other hand, doing so also opens the door for defense attorneys to use the same tactic to remove text messages and email correspondence from evidence – whether or not they are legitimately relevant in court – based on the extreme challenge of proving the issue of authorship.

So, what do you think? Was the court right in ruling against the admission of these text messages as evidence? Does this decision create more eDiscovery problems than it solves? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: U.S. Court Rules on ECPA Protection of Emails in the Cloud
 

An October 3 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offers new clarity in defining and protecting the eDiscovery rights of non-U.S. nationals using U.S. services online, by ruling that emails stored on servers located within the U.S. are protected by national laws on ESI.

In Suzlon Energy Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation, the court determined that holders of online accounts whose servers are located in the U.S., regardless of their location or nationality, are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, commonly known as the "ECPA." The ECPA ensures that the disclosure of emails by electronic communication service providers is limited and restricted to specific circumstances.

The Suzlon case originated out of an Australian case brought by an Indian company (Suzlon) against an Indian defendant, Rajagopalan Sridhar and put the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion on the reach of the ECPA to the test.

  • The plaintiff's legal counsel sought access to emails in the defendant's Hotmail account, stored on Microsoft servers located in the U.S.
  • The defendant did not provide consent for his emails to be used in discovery, nor did Microsoft consent to release the emails in question.
  • Microsoft's objection brought the case before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and later before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which agreed that the emails were protected by the ECPA.
  • Despite the plaintiff's and defendant's Indian nationality, and the fact that the suit in question was Australian, the U.S. court ruled in a manner that creates a powerful precedent for future lawsuits related to electronic communication providers whose servers are located in the U.S. As a result of this case, it has become clear that any users with accounts in U.S.-held cloud services will be subject to the same protections under the ECPA as a U.S. citizen.

So, what do you think? Does this ruling offer fair and sensible protect to U.S.-based companies and the users of their cloud services, or does it unnecessarily complicate the field of international eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Is Email Still the Most Common Form of Requested ESI?
 

Email has historically been the most common form of requested electronically stored information (ESI), but that has changed, according to a survey performed by Symantec and reported in Law Technology News.

According to the article, Symantec’s survey, conducted this past June and July, included lawyers and technologists at 2,000 enterprises worldwide.  However, the article doesn’t indicate the total number of respondents or whether that’s the number of organizations receiving the survey or the number actually responding.

Regarding how frequently (percentage of situations requested) various types of ESI are requested during legal and regulatory processes, the survey yielded some surprising answers:

  • Files and Documents: 67 percent
  • Application and Database Records: 61 percent
  • Email: 58 percent
  • Microsoft SharePoint records: 51 percent
  • Messaging Formats (e.g., instant messaging, texts, and BlackBerry PIN messages): 44 percent
  • Social Media Data: 41 percent

Email requested in legal and regulatory processes just over half the time?  That’s more than surprising, that’s shocking!

Symantec’s survey also asked about implementation of a formal data retention policy, with 30 percent of responding companies indicating that they have discussed but have not implemented a policy and 14 percent indicating that they have no plans to implement a policy (44 percent total that have not implemented a policy).  Reasons for not doing so were as follows (respondents were allowed to pick multiple reasons):

  • No Need Identified: 41 percent
  • Cost: 38 percent
  • No Designated Employee (to implement the policy): 27 percent
  • Too Time Consuming: 26 percent
  • Lack of Expertise: 21 percent

Many of these companies may not feel compelled to implement a policy because they are not frequently in litigation nor are they in regulated industries.

So, what do you think?  Do the percentages above reflect your experience as to how frequently the different types of ESI are requested?  Does the email percentage seem significantly low?  In my experience, it does.  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Are Attachments Part of the Email Or Are They Separate?

A Special Master recently investigated the legal standard concerning whether or not attachments must be produced with the emails to which they were attached in discovery proceedings, and determined that there is no certain answer to be found in case law precedent.

In Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc., No. 08 Vic. 7508(SAS), 2011 WL 3738979 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011), the defendants argued that SEI Investments (“SEI”) was at fault for neglecting to produce certain attachments to emails as part of discovery, and that SEI was obligated to produce these attachments and explain their absence. This request ultimately delved into issues of precedent and legal standard:

  • SEI stated that it had already produced the documents that were relevant and were not protected by privilege, and argued that it was not obligated to produce the attachments in question because they were non-responsive to discovery.
  • A Special Master was convened to consider the issue and to establish the legal standard for this type of discovery question.
  • The Special Master found a number of conflicting examples: In some cases, the obligation to produce attachments with the relevant emails was implied, but most of these instances assumed that attachments were required to be produced and focused solely on the format of production. In a number of cases, producing attachments with their emails has been the norm; however, in other cases, emails and attachments were treated as separate in terms of privilege determination.
  • The Special Master concluded that “conceptually” the two could be viewed separately, or they could be seen as a single unit for the purpose of discovery, and advised that the decision should generally be made by the parties involved in advance, during pretrial discovery talks.
  • In this case, the Special Master questioned SEI’s argument for not producing the attachments in question, and at the same time, argued against the probably unnecessary expense of forcing SEI to produce all attachments to all emails previously included in discovery.
  • Therefore, the Special Master made a series of recommendations that were adopted by District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin. These included: a) Production of the non-privileged attachments to the 126 emails previously identified by the defendants, as well as a complete list of any such documents that it proves unable to produce; b) permission for the defendants to request further such attachments as deemed relevant and necessary to this case; and, c) a meeting between all parties to discuss this issue and reach an agreement on policy regarding the production or withholding of email attachments and their format.

So, what do you think? Do you believe that email attachments should generally be produced as a matter of course with the emails to which they were attached, or that they should be considered as separate documents for the purpose of discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Sanctions for Spoliation, Even When Much of the Data Was Restored

A Virginia court recently ordered sanctions against the defendant in a case of deliberate spoliation of electronic discovery documents.

In E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09cv58, 2011 WL 2966862 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011), the defendant was found to have committed spoliation “in bad faith” in a manner that constituted a “violation of duty… to the Court and the judicial process,” as follows:

  • The defendant, Kolon Industries Inc., was charged with misappropriation of trade secrets, conspiracy, information theft, and other allegations.
  • Within two days of receiving the plaintiff’s February 4, 2009 complaint, the defendant issued a litigation hold to upper-level employees. Several days after that, on February 10, a second hold notice was sent to all employees in English – even though most of Kolon’s staff members did not speak English.
  • Subsequently, many of the defendant’s key employees were found to have deleted files and emails that may have been relevant for discovery. After extensive investigation, the plaintiff’s expert discovered that the defendant had demonstrably deleted at least “17,811 files and email items” that should have been preserved for discovery.
  • The court determined that employees had deleted ESI “in bad faith,” conducting intentional spoliation and alteration of relevant evidence in direct contravention of the demands of discovery.
  • Even though many (but not all) of the documents were recovered (most from backup tape), the court rejected the defendant’s argument that “there can be no spoliation finding because many documents were recovered” and eventually produced, stating: “The fact that technology permits the undoing of spoliation does not change at all the fact that spoliation has occurred.”
  • Accordingly, the court leveled sanctions against the defendant, ordering it to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees, costs and expenses on this motion, and ordered an adverse inference instruction to the jury.  However, the court found that default judgment requested by the plaintiff was not appropriate, citing defendant’s attempts to place two litigation holds and the “good fortune that many deleted items were recoverable because of the preservation of Kolon’s backup tapes.”

So, what do you think? Were the sanctions appropriate, or should recovery of much of the deleted data have spared the defendant in this case? Have you ever been involved in a case where deleted electronic documents were recovered and sanctions avoided? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: "Untimely" Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation Denied

A recent ruling by the US District Court of Tennessee has denied a motion for sanctions for spoliation on the grounds that the motion was “untimely.”

In Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Campbell Ins., Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00604, 2011 WL 3021399 (M.D. Tenn. July 22, 2011), the plaintiff argued that the defendants’ admitted failure to preserve evidence “warrants a harsh penalty,” but the court found in favor of the defense that the motion was untimely.

  • The defendants, Tommy Campbell, Marshall C. Campbell and Campbell Insurance, Inc. were previously found to have failed to preserve email evidence from the period between April and July 2009. The plaintiff claimed that these emails contained “damning evidence” and that this discovery spoliation was deliberate.
  • This spoliation was discovered in May 2010, but the plaintiff did not file a motion for sanctions until July 16, 2011 – more than fourteen months after the spoliation was discovered and almost five months after discovery closed in February of 2011.
  • With the trial less than seven weeks way, the court considered this motion for sanctions for spoliation in the light of the summary of the law on spoliation that was provided in Goodman v. Praxair Services, Inc., 632 F.Supp.2d 494 (D.Md.2009). Among other points, the district court in Goodman v. Praxair encouraged courts to be aware of the time between the close of discovery and a motion related to spoliation, as well as cautioning against spoliation motions “made on the eve of trial.”
  • The court rejected the plaintiff’s excuse for the timing on the basis that “because the relevant emails were deleted and cannot possibly be produced, the Motion for Sanctions ‘is not a discovery motion.'”
  • Because of the “disruptive” timing of the motion, and the inability of the plaintiff to effectively explain why they delayed so long in filing a motion after this spoliation was encountered in discovery, the court ultimately ruled against the motion for sanctions, calling it “untimely”.

So, what do you think? Does spoliation of evidence “expire” or should timeliness matter at all in a case like this one? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.