Unintentional Consequences? The District Court of Maryland Holds Evidence Failed Rule 37(e)’s “Intent to Deprive” Requirement
A recent opinion from the District Court of Maryland highlights the challenges litigants face proving intent to deprive under Rule 37(e)(2) when seeking sanctions for spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI). In Gov’t Emps. Health Ass’n v. Actelion Pharm. LTD., et al., Magistrate Judge Mark Coulson set forth the requirements to prove entitlement to remedial measures or sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1) and (2) and then applied these requirements to decide the ESI spoliation claims before the court. This blog has written extensively on what is required to trigger Rule 37(e) and resulting sanctions. In June 2017, defendant Actelion (“defendant”) was purchased by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”). Following the acquisition, Actelion migrated its data to J&J, which managed the data of both companies. On November 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed this antitrust litigation against Actelion alleging the plaintiff was forced to pay higher prices for one of Actelion’s drugs because of the unavailability of a cheaper generic version caused by the defendant’s blocking of competition. Soon after, J&J issued a legal hold to preserve relevant information for the antitrust litigation. The defendant’s custodians included in the legal hold were determined by the defendant’s then in-house counsel (“Thompson”). Absent from the legal hold were five former defendant employees (“at-issue custodians”) with documents relevant to the antitrust litigation....