Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff True Footage Inc. moved for a court order directing Defendants Automax AI Inc., Automax AI (US) Inc., and Humza Ahmed to preserve evidence.
The parties agreed on the applicable legal standard, which requires assessing (i) the degree of concern that evidence will be destroyed, (ii) the risk of irreparable harm to the requesting party, and (iii) the preserving party’s capability to maintain the evidence. True Footage argued that Defendants are “young people without litigation experience” and had not provided sufficiently detailed responses to its inquiries about specific preservation measures. Defendants, represented by experienced counsel, assured the court they intend to take steps to preserve evidence, follow applicable law, and negotiate an ESI protocol in good faith.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied True Footage’s request for a preservation order without prejudice. It found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a “specific, imminent threat supported by the record” that spoliation is occurring or imminent, as required by Capricorn Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429, 437-38 (W.D.
Pa. 2004). No precedent justifies a preservation order based solely on a party’s age or litigation experience, nor does Plaintiff have a right to the “specific assurances” it sought. The court concluded that the existing duty to preserve evidence after a complaint is filed, backed by the threat of sanctions, is sufficient to secure preservation in most cases, citing Bright Solutions for Dyslexia, Inc. v.
Doe 1, 2015 WL 5159125, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015). The request may be renewed if a legitimate basis for a protective order later arises.
Key Takeaways
- A preservation order requires a specific, imminent threat of spoliation supported by the record; generalized concerns about a party’s youth or inexperience are insufficient.
- The mere fact that a party has not provided detailed preservation assurances does not entitle the requesting party to a court order compelling such assurances.
- Representation by experienced counsel and a stated willingness to preserve evidence and negotiate an ESI protocol weigh against granting a preservation motion.
- The post-complaint duty to preserve relevant evidence, coupled with potential sanctions, generally provides adequate protection without court intervention.
- The denial is without prejudice, allowing renewal if a legitimate basis for a protective order emerges later in the case.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the Northern District of California’s reluctance to issue standalone preservation orders absent concrete evidence of spoliation risk. It clarifies that a party’s age or litigation inexperience, without more, does not establish the requisite threat of evidence destruction. The decision also underscores that the ordinary duty to preserve evidence triggered by the filing of a complaint, enforced through sanctions, remains the default mechanism for ensuring evidence integrity, and that courts will not micromanage preservation efforts through protective orders unless the moving party meets a heightened evidentiary burden.
The order gives discovery counsel a clean threshold for extraordinary preservation relief: identify concrete facts showing that relevant evidence is being destroyed or faces an imminent threat. Suspicion based on age, inexperience, or incomplete assurances will ordinarily not overcome the existing preservation duty and sanctions framework. Parties receiving preservation demands should still document reasonable steps, involve experienced counsel, and negotiate an electronically stored information protocol in good faith.
Those facts helped persuade the court that an additional order was unnecessary. The denial was without prejudice. True Footage may renew the request if a legitimate, record-supported basis for protective relief arises; the court did not excuse defendants from their ordinary preservation obligations.