Spoliation of evidence has always carried consequences. But the rise of electronically stored information as the dominant form of evidence in civil litigation has transformed spoliation from an occasional discovery dispute into one of the most consequential—and most litigated—issues in modern e-discovery practice.

The stakes are high and getting higher. Federal courts have imposed terminating sanctions, default judgment, adverse inference instructions, jury instructions that allow the fact-finder to draw negative inferences, and substantial attorneys' fees against parties and their counsel for the loss of ESI. A single recent Ninth Circuit decision affirmed nearly $69,000 in monetary sanctions against both a plaintiff and her lawyers for intentional deletion of text messages—without requiring a specific showing of prejudice to the opposing party.

Understanding how spoliation doctrine applies to ESI, what preservation obligations attach and when, and how courts evaluate culpability under the current FRCP framework is no longer optional for litigators. It's foundational.

Note: This article discusses federal spoliation law under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. State courts in the majority of jurisdictions follow federal courts' construction of comparable discovery statutes. Consult counsel regarding the specific rules applicable to your jurisdiction.

What Is ESI Spoliation?

Spoliation of evidence is the destruction, alteration, loss, or failure to preserve information that is or could be relevant to anticipated or pending litigation. Applied to electronically stored information, ESI spoliation encompasses everything from the intentional deletion of relevant emails and text messages to the inadvertent loss of ESI through the failure to implement adequate preservation measures.

The threshold question in any spoliation analysis is when the duty to preserve attached. Under federal common law and FRCP principles, a party's preservation obligations arise when litigation is reasonably anticipated—not when a complaint is filed. That distinction matters enormously. A party who destroys potentially relevant ESI after receiving a demand letter, after an internal complaint is filed, or after circumstances clearly signal that litigation is coming cannot escape spoliation consequences simply because no lawsuit existed at the moment of destruction.

The practical implication is that preservation obligations often arise before a party has retained litigation counsel, before any formal discovery requests have been issued, and before the scope of relevant information is fully understood. Litigants who fail to act promptly when litigation becomes reasonably foreseeable routinely find themselves defending spoliation motions later.

The Controlling Framework: FRCP Rule 37(e)

The primary mechanism for addressing ESI spoliation in federal courts is Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which was substantially amended in 2015. The new rule replaced a patchwork of inconsistent circuit approaches with a unified framework governing the loss of ESI that should have been preserved.

Rule 37(e) applies when ESI that should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it and the ESI cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery. The rule then creates a two-tier structure for available remedies based on the level of culpability involved.

Under Rule 37(e)(1), if the court finds that a party suffered prejudice from the loss of ESI, it may order measures no greater than necessary to cure that prejudice. These curative measures can include adverse inference instructions, additional discovery at the spoliating party's expense, or cost-shifting for discovery necessitated by the loss.

Under Rule 37(e)(2), if the court finds that a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the information's use in litigation, the range of available sanctions expands dramatically. A court may presume that the lost ESI was unfavorable, instruct the jury accordingly with an adverse inference instruction, or—in the most severe cases—dismiss the action or enter a default judgment against the spoliating party. Critically, Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions do not require a finding of prejudice. Intent alone, properly established, is sufficient.

The advisory committee notes to Rule 37(e) clarify that the intent standard under subsection (2) requires more than negligence or even gross negligence. The spoliating party must have acted with the purpose of depriving an adverse party of the lost information's use in the litigation. Negligent or even reckless failure to preserve ESI may warrant curative measures under Rule 37(e)(1), but the severe sanctions available under Rule 37(e)(2) require intentional destruction.

Jones v. Riot Hospitality Group: A Roadmap for Spoliation Analysis

The Ninth Circuit's 2024 decision in Jones v. Riot Hospitality Group LLC, 95 F.4th 730, is one of the most instructive recent case law developments in ESI spoliation doctrine. It's worth examining in detail because it illustrates how courts evaluate culpability and how they apply circumstantial evidence to establish intent.

In Jones, a former hospitality company employee sued her former employer for wrongful termination in a federal discrimination case. During e-discovery, the integrity of her text message productions was questioned when depositions of her own witnesses revealed that they had received text messages from her that were absent from her discovery responses.

The district court ordered her and her witnesses to produce their cell phones for forensic imaging. Instead, she and one witness obtained new cell phones shortly after the order was entered, effectively preventing recovery of deleted messages—a paradigmatic ESI spoliation move that courts have repeatedly held to evidence bad faith.

A forensic imaging vendor was retained. Some text messages were recovered and turned over to her counsel. Her counsel then ignored multiple court orders to produce the retrieved messages to opposing counsel. The district court ultimately ordered the vendor to turn the information over directly to defense counsel—a dramatic illustration of the inherent authority courts retain to manage discovery misconduct.

A forensic expert retained by the employer concluded that the former employee had intentionally deleted specific text messages from her threads while preserving others sent around the same time. The inexplicable gaps in her message history, inconsistent with witness testimony, supported the inference of selective and intentional destruction.

The district court dismissed the case and imposed approximately $69,000 in attorneys' fees against both the former employee and her counsel. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in full. On the question of intent, the appellate court adopted a definition of intentional destruction as "the willful destruction of evidence with the purpose of avoiding its discovery by an adverse party." It held that courts may rely on circumstantial evidence in making that determination—including the timing of the destruction, the affirmative steps taken to delete information, and the selective preservation of other contemporaneous evidence.

The former employee argued that sanctions were unwarranted because the employer had still been able to conduct depositions, review hundreds of text messages, and present a summary judgment motion. The court rejected this entirely. The standard under Rule 37(e) is not whether the opposing party was ultimately able to mount a defense—it is whether the destruction impaired the party's ability to go to trial and threatened to interfere with a rightful decision of the case. Both standards were satisfied.

Implementing a Litigation Hold: The Foundation of Preservation

The litigation hold is the primary mechanism through which parties satisfy their preservation obligations once litigation is reasonably anticipated. A litigation hold is a formal, documented communication to relevant custodians—employees, contractors, IT personnel, and anyone else likely to have potentially relevant information—instructing them to preserve ESI and suspending ordinary document destruction policies.

Getting the litigation hold right matters because courts evaluate the reasonableness of a party's preservation steps in determining culpability under Rule 37(e). A well-documented litigation hold demonstrates a good faith effort to comply with preservation obligations. The absence of any litigation hold, or a hold that was implemented too late, too narrowly, or without adequate follow-through, is often the foundation of a successful motion for sanctions.

Effective litigation hold practices include identifying the key custodians with relevant ESI as soon as the duty to preserve arises; issuing written hold notices that clearly explain the obligation to preserve and the categories of relevant information; following up with custodians to confirm compliance; and monitoring the hold throughout the litigation to ensure that relevant ESI is not lost through system changes, hardware upgrades, or employee departures.

The hold must extend across all relevant information systems where potentially relevant ESI may reside. In modern organizations, that includes email servers, local hard drives, shared drives, cloud storage, collaboration platforms, mobile devices, and social media accounts. Relevant emails, text messages, and other communications across personal devices used for business purposes are not exempt simply because they reside on a personal information system.

The Role of Social Media in ESI Preservation

Social media has become a significant and frequently contested category of ESI in civil litigation. Posts, messages, and account metadata on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and other platforms have been the subject of subpoenas, discovery requests, and spoliation motions across a wide range of civil litigation contexts—from employment discrimination cases to personal injury matters to complex commercial disputes.

Litigants who delete social media posts or alter their accounts after litigation is reasonably anticipated face the same spoliation analysis as those who delete text messages or relevant emails. Courts have found bad faith and imposed severe sanctions for social media deletion, particularly where the timing of the deletion correlates closely with the receipt of litigation notice or the service of discovery requests.

For attorneys advising clients at the outset of litigation, the instruction regarding social media needs to be explicit: do not delete, alter, or restrict access to accounts in ways that could affect the preservation of relevant information. The temptation to clean up a social media presence when litigation looms is understandable, but the legal consequences of acting on that impulse can be severe—including adverse inference instructions, motion for sanctions, or worse.

As with other forms of ESI, screenshots and metadata preservation matter. The content of a post is one piece of evidence; the metadata showing when it was posted, edited, or deleted can be equally significant in establishing the timeline of events or demonstrating intentional destruction.

Sanctions in Practice: What Courts Are Actually Imposing

The range of remedies available for ESI spoliation spans from modest curative measures to case-dispositive sanctions, and federal courts in recent years have demonstrated willingness to impose severe sanctions where the record supports it.

At the S.D.N.Y. and other active federal court centers, courts have imposed adverse inference instructions, default judgment, and dismissal in cases involving intentional destruction. Monetary sanctions including attorneys' fees and costs associated with the spoliation discovery are common even in cases where the ultimate disposition sanction is not warranted. In some decisions cited in F.R.D. and F. Supp. reporters, courts have ordered litigants to pay the full cost of forensic recovery efforts triggered by their failure to preserve.

Courts also retain inherent authority to sanction discovery misconduct independent of Rule 37(e), and some courts have relied on that authority where the specific requirements of the rule were not technically satisfied. The existence of this parallel avenue underscores that ESI spoliation carries risk even when a party believes the Rule 37(e) framework may not squarely apply.

One consistent theme across the case law is that courts evaluate the full picture of conduct—not just the act of destruction but the surrounding circumstances. The timing of deletion relative to litigation notice, the selectivity of preservation, the cooperation or obstruction of discovery proceedings, and the response to court orders all factor into the culpability analysis. A single inadvertent loss of ESI handled transparently and remedied promptly looks entirely different from a pattern of noncompliance punctuated by new cell phones purchased the week after a court order.

Practical Guidance for Litigators and Their Clients

For attorneys managing ESI preservation issues, several practices significantly reduce exposure to spoliation sanctions.

Issue the litigation hold in writing, as early as possible, and document it carefully. Verbal instructions are insufficient. The hold notice should identify the categories of relevant information, the systems where it may reside, the obligation to suspend routine deletion, and the name of a contact for questions. Follow-up is not optional—custodians who receive a hold notice and then proceed to delete information because no one checked compliance create the same liability as if no hold had been issued.

Educate clients explicitly about the consequences of ESI spoliation at the outset of the engagement, and put that education in writing. In family law and other contexts where clients may have an impulse to control or destroy communications with an opposing party, the warning needs to be unambiguous: destruction of evidence, directly or indirectly, including through spyware, password access to another party's accounts, or deletion of text messages, carries consequences that include sanctions, adverse inference, and dismissal. Document that the warning was given.

When ESI is lost despite reasonable preservation efforts, move to address it transparently. Courts are far more likely to impose curative measures rather than severe sanctions against a party who acknowledges the loss, cooperates in remediation, and demonstrates that the loss was inadvertent. The instinct to minimize or conceal a preservation failure consistently produces worse outcomes than candid disclosure.

Finally, in any case where ESI spoliation by the opposing party is suspected, act promptly. File a motion for sanctions supported by specific evidence of the loss and, where possible, forensic analysis of the gaps. The credibility of a spoliation motion is significantly stronger when it is supported by expert testimony or forensic findings rather than inference alone.

Frequently Asked Questions About ESI Spoliation

When does the duty to preserve ESI arise?

The duty to preserve arises when litigation is reasonably anticipated—which typically means when a party receives a demand letter, becomes aware of an incident that is likely to result in litigation, or takes any other step that signals an objective understanding that legal proceedings are likely. The filing of a complaint is not the trigger.

What is an adverse inference instruction?

An adverse inference instruction is a jury instruction that permits—or in some cases directs—the jury to presume that destroyed evidence or lost information was unfavorable to the party responsible for its loss. Under Rule 37(e)(2), an adverse inference instruction requires a finding of intentional destruction. Under Rule 37(e)(1), lesser curative measures may be appropriate without a finding of intent.

Can a party be sanctioned for ESI loss even if the opposing party wasn't prejudiced?

Under Rule 37(e)(2), yes. If a court finds that a party acted with intent to deprive the opposing party of the ESI's use in litigation, severe sanctions—including dismissal or default judgment—may be imposed without a separate finding of prejudice. This was a deliberate design choice in the 2015 amendments.

What is the difference between negligent and intentional ESI destruction for sanctions purposes?

Negligent failure to preserve ESI may support curative measures under Rule 37(e)(1) if the opposing party suffered prejudice. Intentional destruction—defined by courts as willful destruction with the purpose of avoiding discovery—supports the full range of severe sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2) without requiring a prejudice finding.

Does the litigation hold need to cover personal devices?

Yes, if personal devices contain potentially relevant ESI. The obligation to preserve extends to all locations where relevant information may reside, including personal email accounts, personal cell phones used for business communications, and personal social media accounts where relevant communications occurred.

What happens if ESI is lost because of routine IT system operations?

If ESI is lost due to routine, good faith operation of an information system before the duty to preserve arose, or if the party took reasonable steps to halt relevant destruction after the duty attached, courts are less likely to impose sanctions. The key is whether the party took reasonable steps once preservation obligations were triggered and whether the loss was truly inadvertent rather than a convenient byproduct of a failure to act.

The Bottom Line about ESI

ESI spoliation is one of the highest-risk areas in civil litigation, and the consequences—from adverse inference instructions and attorneys' fees to default judgment and dismissal—can be case-dispositive. The framework under Rule 37(e) is clear on its face but highly fact-intensive in application. The parties and counsel who fare best are those who take preservation obligations seriously from the moment litigation becomes reasonably foreseeable, document their efforts carefully, and handle any inadvertent losses with transparency rather than concealment.

NBI offers continuing legal education programs on e-discovery, ESI preservation, and discovery practice for litigators at every level. To check out NBI’s full selection of family law courses, visit: NBI Family Law.

Join nbi-sems.com today to explore a full catalog of CLE courses designed to help legal professionals lead, adapt, and thrive in a rapidly changing legal landscape.