Goldman v. Sol Goldman Investments LLC

Background

Jeffrey M. Goldman sued his former employers—Sol Goldman Investments LLC, Solil Management LLC, and Jane H. Goldman—alleging violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The defendants moved for sanctions based on alleged spoliation, meaning the destruction or loss of evidence that should have been preserved for litigation. They sought dismissal of the amended complaint or lesser sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which governs lost electronically stored information.

The motion concerned two items. First, before returning his work phone after being fired, Goldman reset it to its factory settings, deleting its contents. Goldman said he believed he was supposed to return the phone in the condition in which he received it and believed the defendants still had the phone records and emails on their systems. Second, Goldman did not initially produce a May 2020 email he sent to his doctor seeking a strong medical letter about his ability to return to work. The doctor later provided the email during his deposition, and Goldman’s attorney then helped him conduct another email search that found 75 additional emails and documents.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Rule 37(e) did not support sanctions for the doctor’s email because the email had not been lost: the doctor produced it during discovery. The rule applies only when electronically stored information is lost and cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.

The court also rejected sanctions concerning the work phone. The defendants had not shown that any phone information was lost or could not be restored or replaced. As Goldman’s former employer, they had access to his work email and phone records. In addition, the defendants had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that Goldman reset the phone with the intent to deprive them of information for use in the litigation. Finally, they had not shown prejudice; their argument that the deleted data must have been relevant was speculation rather than proof that it would support their position.

Disposition

The court concluded that the defendants had not established the requirements for spoliation sanctions under Rule 37(e). Judge Sarah Netburn denied the defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions, including their request to dismiss the amended complaint, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 70.