ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Brief Summary: Defendants who failed to comply with discovery orders and tried to destroy electronic evidence appealed from the trial court's decision to sanction them by striking their answer and entering a default judgment in excess of $24 million.

Facts: Pursuant to a discovery order, defendants produced four computers for examination by plaintiffs' computer forensics consultant. The plaintiffs' expert determined that between the date of the discovery order and the production of the computers, a program named Data Eraser had been used to wipe data from the defendants' computers. In at least one instance, the erasure program did not function properly, allowing the computer forensics expert to recover proprietary information belonging to the plaintiffs from defendants' computers.

Despite the clear destruction of electronic data, defendants filed supplemental discovery responses under oath stating that they had fully complied with the court's discovery order, while making no mention of the destruction and attempted destruction of electronic data.

At a subsequent hearing, the trial court issued terminating sanctions for defendants' abuse of the discovery process, in which it struck defendants' cross-complaints and answers to plaintiffs' complaint. It then entered a default judgment against defendants and awarded a judgment in favor of plaintiffs in excess of $24 million.

Issue(s): Among other things, defendants argued that the trial court violated their due process rights by imposing terminating sanctions for the abuses of the discovery process.

Decision: The appeals court upheld the trial court's decision to impose terminating sanctions.

Reasoning: Under California law, a trial court's decision to impose a particular sanction is only reversible "for manifest abuse exceeding the bounds of reason." While lesser sanctions were available to the trial court (such as a jury instruction requiring an adverse inference for missing evidence), it is not the job of the appeals court to substitute its own judgment.

In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Defendants were expressly warned of the possibility of a terminating sanction; nonetheless, they proceeded to use the Data Eraser program in an attempt to destroy relevant evidence. The appeals court concluded that there is ample evidence of spoliation of evidence by the defendants, and agreed with the trial court that no lesser sanction would have provided plaintiffs with the due process to which they were entitled.