Zapproved
  • Products
    • ZDiscovery Suite
      • Legal Hold Pro
      • Digital Discovery Pro
    • Pricing
    • Security
    • Request a Demo
  • Solutions
    • Legal Hold Software Solutions For Legal Teams
    • Office 365 Preservations
    • Processing & Culling
    • Early Case Assessment
    • Review and Production
    • Internal Investigations
    • Information Requests
  • Resources
    • Resources
    • Blog
    • Events
    • Webinars
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Partners
    • Recognition
    • News Releases
    • Careers
    • Community Engagement
    • Contact Us
  • Login
  • See a Demo
Select Page

Negligent Spoliation Inadequate For Dismissal

by Zapproved | Sep 19, 2018 | Case Law

Heggen v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00440-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind. April 27, 2018).

In this employment case, the court sanctioned the plaintiff for destroying cell phone records and lying under oath. However, the court denied the “draconian sanction of dismissal,” choosing instead to impose monetary sanctions. It also reserved judgment on an adverse inference jury instruction.

The plaintiff, Theresa Heggen, previously worked for the defendant, Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., as a home health care aide. After her employment ended, Heggen filed claims for sexual harassment and retaliation.

In this motion, Maxim asked the court to dismiss Heggen’s complaint as a sanction for lying under oath and destroying evidence.

Maxim alleged that Heggen lied under oath about three subjects.

First, regarding her prior employment, Heggen failed to mention her employment at Interim Health Care. According to Maxim’s review of Interim’s records, Heggen left Interim after “a patient’s medications went missing” and Heggen “tested positive for the missing medications.” Heggen claimed that she simply forgot to mention Interim. The court rejected this explanation as incredible, finding the omission intentional.

Second, Heggen testified that she “voluntarily” left her two subsequent employers. Maxim disagreed, claiming that both employers fired her. One employer received a complaint that Heggen stole $300 from a client. The other stated that it terminated Heggen for mismanaging her client’s financial assets. However, the court accepted that Heggen may have “take[n] the view that she quit” before she could be fired.

Finally, Maxim alleged that Heggen lied when she claimed no prior litigation history. Citing a search of Indiana’s online court docket, it stated that Heggen had appeared in approximately 30 actions. Heggen countered that she thought the question referred only to other employment litigation. The court found this explanation reasonable.

Turning to the spoliation of evidence, Maxim argued that “Heggen destroyed key evidence,” justifying dismissal. Heggen claimed to have made “about seven [cell phone] recordings” that she said supported her claims. She testified that she had provided the recordings to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She further stated that she “emailed the recordings to the EEOC,” though she couldn’t find a copy of that email. Thereafter, Heggen deleted the recordings from her phone and “performed a factory reset” that wiped the phone completely.

Maxim was unable to find the recordings through the EEOC or the Fort Wayne Metropolitan Human Relations Commission (“Metro”). Heggen’s counsel, on the other hand, successfully obtained three recordings from Metro. Even so, those files were copies, lacking original metadata. Curiously, though Heggen claimed to have made the recordings on her iPhone, the recovered files were in a format generally used by Android phones.

The court noted that Heggen was under a duty to preserve the recordings and that she failed to do so.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows the court to impose sanctions for “hiding evidence and lying” under oath. The court also has the inherent authority to sanction parties for misconduct. That authority encompasses dismissal as an appropriate sanction for a party’s abuse of the judicial process. However, sanctions “must be proportionate to the circumstances.”

Here, the court found “no evidence that Heggen deleted the original recordings with the intent ‘to withhold unfavorable information’” about her claims. Importantly, the evidence she purported to have would have helped her case, not Maxim’s. The court concluded that “Heggen acted negligently” by destroying the records, but it did not find bad faith.

The court then assessed what sanction would be “a proportionate response” to Heggen’s false testimony and negligent destruction of evidence. It held that the “draconian sanction of dismissal” was not yet appropriate. This ultimate sanction requires the court to find a heightened level of willfulness or bad faith, not mere negligence. The court further observed that dismissal is generally inadvisable without a warning. The court proceeded to explicitly warn Heggen that “any additional discovery transgressions may result in further sanctions,” including dismissal.

Having denied dismissal, the court assessed a monetary sanction in the form of Maxim’s reasonable expenses for the motion. Additionally, while “a spoliation charge to the jury concerning the recordings may be appropriate,” it would be “premature” at this time.

Therefore, the court granted the motion in part, imposing monetary sanctions but denying dismissal. It reserved any decision about a spoliation jury instruction until trial.

Read Case Law

Takeaways on Preserving Original Evidence

The court here could have easily concluded that the plaintiff lied about more than her previous employment, falsifying the alleged recordings as well. The lack of original files or metadata, the deletion followed by a full phone reset, and the eventual recovery of Android-format files reportedly recorded on an iPhone all raise concerns. Insulate yourself from similar suspicions by ensuring that you preserve evidence with its metadata intact.

Questions about defensibly managing ESI? We’re here to help you master ediscovery and avoid spoliation claims.

Contact Us

Data deletiondestroying recordsemploymentFRCP 37metadataproportionalityretaliationSpoliationtechnology

Related Content

No reasonable anticipation of litigation given longstanding relationship and lack of communication about incident

No reasonable anticipation of litigation given longstanding relationship and lack of communication about incident

by Caitlin Lilly | Oct 17, 2019 | Case Law

In this breach of contract case, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, finding that the defendants were under no duty to preserve evidence at the time of its loss.

Stormy seas, waves, clouds, wind as seen through a cruise ship porthole.

Preserved 91-minute video sufficient to capture ‘horrific storm’

by Zapproved | Oct 3, 2019 | Case Law

In this claim for injuries sustained during a boat cruise, the court began its opinion by noting that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Given that, “surely a video must be worth significantly more” — and video evidence from 200 surveillance cameras worth yet more than that.

Silhouetted image of three defendants who deleted evidence before and after legal hold, then misrepresented its availability, resulting in spoliation sanctions.

Defendants deleted evidence before and after legal hold, then misrepresented its availability

by Zapproved | Sep 23, 2019 | Case Law

In this employment case, the magistrate imposed monetary sanctions and recommended an adverse inference jury instruction for the defendants’ spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI). Although the defendants were on notice of the plaintiff’s claims and had a clear obligation to preserve relevant information, they intentionally deleted her email and work data...

Zapproved logo

Founded in 2008, Zapproved builds easy-to-use litigation response software designed to help corporate legal teams drive down costs, reduce risk, and build a better process. With our unwavering commitment to keeping our 350+ corporate customers ridiculously successful, we are proud to have earned a 99% retention rate.

  • Products
  • ZDiscovery
  • Legal Hold Pro
  • Digital Discovery Pro
  • Security
  • Company
  • COVID-19
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Ediscovery Resources
  • Blog
  • Connect
  • Contact Us
  • Login
  • See a Demo
  • PREX
  • Webinars

    • Facebook

    • Twitter

    • LinkedIn
© 2021 Zapproved LLC. All rights reserved.
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy