Snapkeys, LTD v. Google LLC
- Lucy Koh
- 5:19-cv-02658
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Snapkeys v. Google, Judge Koh denied Snapkeys’ motion for a finding of evidence destruction and an adverse inference.
Snapkeys, LTD’s request for a spoliation finding and adverse inference was denied; Google LLC was not subject to that requested sanction.
What happened
Snapkeys, LTD gave Google two prototype smart watches containing Snapkeys’ keyboard software under a nondisclosure agreement. A Google employee examined and discarded the watches in July or August 2016.
Snapkeys argued that Google had a duty to preserve the watches, either because litigation was foreseeable or because the agreement required Google to protect them. The court found that Snapkeys had not shown a preservation duty existed when the watches were discarded or that Google acted culpably.
Judge Koh denied Snapkeys’ motion for a finding of spoliation. The requested adverse inference was therefore not imposed.
The detailed version
- Snapkeys, LTD v. Google LLC · No. 5:19-cv-02658
- Lucy Koh
- May 17, 2021
Background
Snapkeys provided Google with two prototype smart watches containing Snapkeys’ keyboard software in November 2015 under a nondisclosure agreement. Google employee Clem Wright examined the watches, and Google discarded them in July or August 2016. On November 1, 2016, Snapkeys’ counsel sent Google a letter ending the agreement, demanding that Google stop using Snapkeys’ technology or intellectual property, and demanding return of the watches.
Snapkeys’ Motion
Snapkeys asked the court to find that Google had destroyed evidence improperly, a process known as spoliation, and to impose an adverse inference. An adverse inference would allow a factfinder to infer that missing evidence would have supported Snapkeys’ position. Snapkeys argued that Google’s duty to preserve the watches began no later than the November 1, 2016 demand letter. In its reply, Snapkeys instead argued that the nondisclosure agreement itself created a five-year contractual duty to preserve the watches and that destroying them would have made litigation reasonably foreseeable.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that spoliation involves destroying or materially altering evidence, or failing to preserve property, when litigation is pending or reasonably foreseeable. The court stated that a party seeking a spoliation finding generally must show that: (1) the person controlling the evidence had a duty to preserve it when it was destroyed; (2) the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind; and (3) the evidence was relevant to the claim or defense.
The court concluded that Snapkeys had not shown Google had a preservation duty in July or August 2016, when the watches were discarded. Google did not receive notice of a potential legal claim until November 1, 2016, several months after the watches were discarded. The court rejected Snapkeys’ argument that the agreement’s requirements to protect the watches as confidential information and not use or disclose them created a litigation-preservation duty, describing that argument as unsupported by legal authority. The court also concluded that Snapkeys had not shown Google discarded the watches with a culpable state of mind and had identified no evidence supporting even an inference of culpability.
Ruling
The court denied Snapkeys’ motion for a finding of spoliation. Judge Lucy Koh did not impose the requested adverse inference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.