Pauly v. Stanford Health Care
- Susan Illston
- 3:18-cv-05387
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Pauly v. Stanford Health Care, Judge Illston denied terminating sanctions after finding insufficient evidence of intentional electronic-evidence destruction.
Plaintiff Makenzie Pauly and defendant Stanford Health Care; the order addressed Pauly’s request for terminating sanctions based on alleged loss or destruction of evidence.
What happened
Pauly v. Stanford Health Care concerns plaintiff’s claim that Stanford Health Care failed to screen and treat her when she was a minor in 2008. Pauly later asked the court to impose terminating sanctions, arguing that Stanford failed to preserve relevant evidence and that this harmed her case.
The court reviewed Pauly’s objections to Magistrate Judge Hixson’s recommendation. It agreed that Pauly had not shown that Stanford failed to preserve information from the EMTALA log, intentionally destroyed electronic evidence, redacted the Medical Transport Program Call Record, or destroyed evidence outside its normal business procedures. The court also agreed that the evidence at issue was electronic evidence governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).
Judge Illston granted Pauly’s request to excuse the late filing of exhibits, adopted Judge Hixson’s report and recommendation, and denied Pauly’s motion for terminating sanctions. The court concluded that Pauly had not shown the intent required for those sanctions.
The detailed version
- Pauly v. Stanford Health Care · No. 3:18-cv-05387
- Susan Illston
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Pauly’s case concerns Stanford Health Care’s alleged failure to screen and treat her when she was a minor in November and December 2008. Pauly moved for terminating sanctions based on alleged failures to preserve evidence, alleged spoliation (loss or destruction of evidence relevant to litigation), and resulting prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Hixson issued a report and recommendation that the motion be denied. Pauly objected to several findings and separately filed an administrative motion asking the court to excuse the late filing of exhibits supporting her objections.
Analysis
The district court reviewed the objected-to portions of the report and recommendation independently under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The court rejected Pauly’s argument concerning the EMTALA log because she had not shown that the produced log lacked information that the original log once contained. The court explained that the relevant issue was preservation of information, not whether Stanford followed requirements when creating the log.
The court also found insufficient evidence that Stanford acted with the intent required for terminating sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). That rule requires a finding that a party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation. Because Pauly did not make that showing, terminating sanctions were unavailable.
The court agreed that the materials at issue were electronically stored information because Pauly’s motion described the evidence as electronic and she had not shown destruction of non-electronic evidence. The court further held that Rule 37(e), rather than the court’s inherent authority, governed the request for terminating sanctions involving lost electronic evidence.
The court found that the three-part test used by Judge Hixson to evaluate spoliation was appropriate. It also agreed that Pauly had not established that the Medical Transport Program Call Record had been redacted. The court concluded that the expert report did not address whether the pixelation and missing information resulted from copying a color original in black and white. Finally, the court found that Pauly had not shown Stanford destroyed evidence outside its normal course of business.
Disposition
Judge Illston granted Pauly’s administrative motion to excuse the late filing of exhibits. The court adopted Judge Hixson’s report and recommendation and denied Pauly’s motion for terminating sanctions. The court concluded that Pauly had not made the required showing of intent under Rule 37(e).
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.