Roadrunner Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Tarwater
Roadrunner Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Tarwater
642 F. App'x 759 (9th Cir. 2016)
March 18, 2016
Summary
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order entering a spoliation sanction of default judgment and an award of attorneys' fees against defendant ("appellant") after finding that appellant acted with the intent to deprive plaintiff of the information's use in this litigation.
The district court found that there was ample evidence that appellant deleted emails and files on his laptops after receiving multiple preservation demands from plaintiff and the court explicitly ordering appellant to preserve all data on his electronic devices. In reviewing the record, this court found that appellant willfully destroyed data and in doing so plaintiff was deprived of evidence relative to the primary issue in the case. The court found that no sanction less than an entry of default judgment could properly redress the prejudice plaintiff incurred as a result of appellant's actions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order and determined that the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees awarded were reasonable.Note: This is an unpublished decision. Check your jurisdiction’s rules about citing unpublished decisions before citing this case to a court.
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
John TARWATER, Defendant–Appellant.
Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
John Tarwater, Defendant–Appellee
v.
John TARWATER, Defendant–Appellant.
Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
John Tarwater, Defendant–Appellee
Nos. 14–55448, 14–55529
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted
March 10, 2016
Filed March 18, 2016
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 8:10–cv–01534–AG–MLG.
Counsel
Amy O. Bruchs, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Madison, WI, Gregory Glazer, Curiale Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellant.Julie Marie McCoy, Esquire, Law Offices of Julie M. McCoy, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant–Appellee.
Panel members:
Murphy, Michael R.*,
Paez, Richard A.,
Nguyen, Jacqueline H.
MEMORANDUM**
See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
John Tarwater appeals the district court's entry of default judgment and award of attorneys' fees in favor of his former employer, Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. Roadrunner cross-appeals the district court's compensatory damages award. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering default judgment as a sanction for Tarwater's deletion of data from his laptop computers. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 957–58 (9th Cir.2006) (describing standard of review for spoliation sanctions). There was ample evidence that Tarwater deleted emails and files on his laptops after receiving multiple preservation demands from Roadrunner, and even after the court explicitly ordered Tarwater to preserve “all data” on his electronic devices. In addition to Tarwater's own admissions, a third-party computer expert concluded that files on one of Tarwater's devices had been deleted and overwritten during the litigation, and that the deletions likely “bypasse[d] the [computer's] Recycle Bin” through a user-initiated process. In light of the evidence of spoliation, and the nature of Roadrunner's claims, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Tarwater willfully destroyed the data, that Roadrunner had been deprived of its “primary evidence of Tarwater's alleged misappropriation and related misconduct,” and that a less drastic *760 sanction could not have adequately redressed the prejudice to Roadrunner. See Anheuser–Busch, Inc. v. Nat. Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348–55 (9th Cir.1995).[1]
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Roadrunner $325,000 in attorneys' fees. See Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2003). The court carefully considered the billing entries and reasonableness of the hourly rates for Roadrunner's attorneys and reduced the award to reflect an appropriate level of staffing for the case. The district court also properly accounted for the degree of success achieved by Roadrunner, as well as the public's interest in protecting trade secrets. See Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 738 F.3d 214, 227 (9th Cir.2013).
3. The district court properly limited Roadrunner's compensatory damages to the four customers specifically identified in the First Amended Complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c); Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.1988).
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36–3.
Even assuming that applying amended Rule 37(e) (effective December 1, 2015) to this case were “just and practicable,” the district court's findings would lead to the same conclusion: Tarwater acted with the intent to deprive Roadrunner of the spoliated information's use in this litigation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e).