Huggins v. Prince George’s Cnty, 2010 WL 4484180 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2010)

In this litigation arising from a dispute between plaintiff, a landowner, and the County regarding the plaintiff’s use of her land, the court found that the defendant was not subject to sanctions for the destruction of a former employee’s email pursuant to County policy where no duty to preserve existed at the time of their destruction.

Plaintiff operated an automobile wholesaling facility on her property.  In October 2002, the Department of Environmental Resources cited plaintiff alleging that she was conducting certain activities without a permit.  Efforts to resolve the violations ensued.  In September 2004 plaintiff filed a Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) lawsuit against the County.  In July 2006, that lawsuit settled.  The settlement agreement expressly stated that plaintiff did not waive the right to file future actions unrelated to the MPIA issues.  Meanwhile, her permitting and use dispute with the County continued and her property was eventually padlocked.  In March 2007 plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of her substantive due process rights, among other things.

In the course of discovery, plaintiff sought production of emails and a paper file from Alfonso Cornish, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Governmental Operations and Environmental Services, Office of the County Executive.  The County informed her that Cornish was no longer with the County and that his email account had been deleted from the archives on or about September 16, 2007 in accordance with County policy.  Likewise the requested paper file could not be located.  Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was denied by the Magistrate Judge but the County was fined $2000 “as a reprimand for their time-wasting behavior” where the County was “not forthcoming about the status of the emails but was not guilty of spoliation.”  Plaintiff objected and sought to modify the order.

Taking up the issue, the District Court first noted plaintiff’s failure to seek discovery holds with regards to Cornish in either the MPIA or the present lawsuit and that while Cornish had been aware of the actions taken by the County toward the plaintiff (namely padlocking her property), the individuals making those decisions “had independent authority to do so without Cornish.”

via Finding No Duty To Preserve, Court Denies Motion for Sanctions : Electronic Discovery Law.