Shafer v. Skyline Advanced Technology Services

Background

Shafer brought Illinois state-law claims against Skyline for conspiracy, wage payment and collection, breach of contract, and defamation. She alleged that Skyline and others conspired not to pay her final commissions, which she claimed exceeded $650,000, and defamed her by accusing her of stealing Skyline laptops, engaging in sexual relationships with Skyline customers, and lacking integrity or the ability to perform her job duties. The court had previously dismissed her defamation and conspiracy claims.

Skyline later sought sanctions in the related proceedings, arguing that Shafer had destroyed electronically stored information and other evidence. The magistrate judge found that Shafer willfully spoliated evidence, including emails and text messages, and recommended dismissing Shafer’s case. The court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the case on July 30, 2020.

Motion to Set Aside the Judgment

Shafer moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which allows relief from a judgment based on fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an opposing party. She argued that statements in a Skyline information-technology director’s declaration—saying Skyline could not remotely back up or preserve the data on her laptop and hard drive—were false. She relied on a declaration from Rick Kollins, a former Skyline employee, stating that Skyline routed business data through its central network and had procedures for backing up employee laptops. Shafer also asked for limited discovery and permission to amend her motion with additional evidence.

Skyline responded that Kollins’s declaration did not state that Skyline possessed a backup of Shafer’s laptop or hard-drive data. Skyline also argued that Shafer had destroyed thousands of emails and text messages, destroyed laptop evidence, and given conflicting accounts about the laptop and hard drive. Shafer replied that she was challenging the severity of the remedy, not the finding that she had spoliated evidence.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that the motion was timely, although Shafer had waited ten months after the judgment to submit Kollins’s declaration. The court then applied Rule 60(b)(3)’s requirement that the moving party prove by clear and convincing evidence that misconduct occurred and prevented a full and fair presentation of the party’s position.

The court held that Kollins’s declaration did not meet that standard. Although the declaration appeared to conflict with Skyline’s position about laptop backups, the court identified factual discrepancies that undermined its credibility. Kollins stated that he began working for Skyline in 1982, even though the company did not exist until 1998. He also described backup practices beginning around 2015, but his employment records indicated that he was not employed by Skyline in 2015. The declaration did not specifically address Shafer’s laptop or hard drive.

The court also held that Shafer was not prevented from fully and fairly presenting her opposition to the sanctions motion. Shafer had already asserted that she believed the information on her laptop was backed up to Skyline’s servers, and she had an incentive and opportunity to investigate or challenge Skyline’s position during the sanctions proceedings. The court further noted that the sanctions recommendation did not rely on the disputed declaration.

Finally, the court held that even if Skyline’s statements amounted to fraud or misrepresentation, the alleged misconduct would not have affected the judgment. The court explained that the judgment rested on Shafer’s broader conduct, including wiping the laptop after being asked to preserve evidence, deleting email and text communications, giving conflicting testimony about the laptop and hard drive, and refusing to provide meaningful deposition answers. The court found that this conduct independently supported dismissal as a sanction.

Disposition

The court denied Shafer’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment. The prior judgment and dismissal therefore remained in place.