In April 2006, plaintiff Swofford was shot seven times, on his own property, by two deputies in pursuit of two burglary suspects.  Plaintiffs brought suit against the sheriff in his official capacity and against the deputies individually.  In August 2006, plaintiffs’ counsel sent the first of two letters requesting the preservation of relevant evidence.  In February 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a second preservation letter and a notice of claim as required by Florida statute.  Defendants did not deny receipt of these letters, but evidence was nonetheless destroyed.

Despite defendants’ receipt of the letters, no litigation holds were ever issued.  Rather, the letters were forwarded to six senior employees of the Seminole Country Sherriff’s Office (“SCSO”), including named defendant Sherriff Eslinger.  No preservation instructions were provided to the deputies involved in the shooting.

General Counsel for the SCSO, David Lane, later testified that by forwarding the letters, “he believed that the SCSO ‘would cover the course and scope of the evidence requested in the [letters]” and that nothing further need be done.  “In fact, Lane professed not to have ever read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ascertain on even a rudimentary level what his and his client’s obligations were in this regard…”  The senior officials who received the preservation requests also made no effort to sequester or preserve evidence.

In the absence of any effort to preserve evidence, relevant data was lost, including electronically stored information.  Specifically, the laptop of one of the deputies involved in the shooting was wiped of its contents and recycled and emails were manually deleted.

via Defendants and General Counsel Sanctioned for Failure to Preserve Evidence : Electronic Discovery Law.