United States: Can Tests For Spoliation In NY State, Federal Courts Be Reconciled?

For many years the sanctions available for the spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI) were largely similar in both the New York federal and state courts. New York state court decisions frequently tracked the federal common law spoliation analysis, most notably set out in the Southern District of New York's Zubulake v. UBS Warburg and Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs. line of cases.1 This analysis allowed for severe— and sometimes case-terminating— sanctions, such as adverse inference instructions, dismissal of claims or counterclaims, or outright dismissal of actions, for both grossly negligent or intentional spoliation. However, in the past year, with the passage of the December 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules), the measure for spoliation and accompanying sanctions in New York state and federal courts has diverged.

Under the Federal Rules

Among the December 2015 amendments to the Rules was a significant rewrite of Rule 37(e), which addresses sanctions available for the failure to preserve ESI. Under the revised rule, sanctions are only available if ESI "that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery[.]" The amendment's most notable departure from certain jurisprudence developed within the Second Circuit concerns remedies available for negligent spoliation, in contrast to the remedies available only for intentional spoliation. Neither set of remedies can be reached now unless the ESI is actually lost—entirely irretrievable from another source or party.

If the preservation obligation and loss requirements are satisfied, negligent spoliation requires a further finding of prejudice. If those criteria are satisfied, the court may deploy a host of sanctions, but none can be case-terminating. The committee notes list the sanctions appropriate for nonintentional spoliation, which include evidence preclusion to offset prejudice; presentation of evidence or argument to the jury regarding the loss of information; and/or jury instructions that would assist in evaluation of that evidence or argument (distinguishable from an adverse inference instruction). Monetary sanctions such as costs and legal fees are also available.

If, however, the court finds that a party "acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation," prejudice is presumed and the court may choose among more severe sanctions, which include a presumption that lost information was unfavorable (in the context of a dispositive motion or bench trial); instruction to the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable; or dismissal of the action or entering of a default judgment. The latter remedy has been utilized to dismiss or bar specific claims and counterclaims, as well. The committee notes emphasize that Rule 37(e) bars these sanctions where the requisite intent is lacking. This is a direct change from pre-amendment common law that allowed for adverse inference sanctions upon finding gross negligence.2 Moreover, the notes indicate that if the sanctions described in the Rule are too extreme for the situation, lesser sanctions may be awarded, noting that the "remedy should fit the wrong."

In the year following the amendment, the published decisions from the New York federal district courts addressing ESI spoliation under the revised Rule 37(e) were relatively few in number. Some courts continued to look to the common law instead, where the matter or motion was pending prior to the amendment.3 Others proceeded under the revised rule, even where the litigation pre-dated the amendment—in part because the amendment could be viewed as more lenient toward the spoliator.4 Those courts that proceeded under the revised Rule have hewn closely to its instructions concerning "loss" and the availability of sanctions for differing levels of culpability, at times even imposing more lenient sanctions in the face of intentional conduct.

The Second Circuit applied amended Rule 37(e) in Mazzei v. Money Store and affirmed the trial court's decision not to give an adverse inference instruction where the loss of relevant ESI was not intentional. 656 F. App'x 558 (2d Cir. 2016). And, in Best Payphones v. City of New York, the court closely analyzed whether the ESI was "lost," holding that since the movants "did not attempt to retrieve copies of the emails, or the information that was in the emails," from third parties, "which would have cured any violation under Rule 37(e)," there could be no finding of loss and therefore no sanctions, despite negligent failure to preserve ESI. Only reasonable attorney fees and costs were awarded because some responsive documents were later produced as a result of the spoliation motion. 2016 WL 792396, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2016). In Cat3 v. Black Lineage, the first decision in the Southern District to interpret and apply Rule 37(e), the court closely applied each of the Rule's requirements and held that relevant ESI, subject to preservation obligations, had been altered intentionally in such a way as to render it "lost," making Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions available. But the court rejected the "drastic sanctions" of dismissal or adverse inference instruction, and instead precluded the spoliator from relying on altered versions of ESI and awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.5 Finally, in Feist v. Paxfire, the court found that the plaintiff had not intentionally spoliated browser history because she routinely cleaned the hard-drive and the computer had crashed (although the court noted that routine cleaning should have been suspended as part of ongoing preservation obligations); without intent, the court refused to award the extreme sanction of dismissal. The court instead precluded plaintiff from arguing for an award of certain types of damages, for which ESI relevant to the damages analysis had been lost. 2016 WL 4540830 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2016).

While the developing case law in the Second Circuit suggests that litigants who negligently or inadvertently spoliate relevant ESI may take comfort that the most severe sanctions will not be available to their adversaries, the same cannot necessarily be said in New York state courts.

Under New York Common Law

Just days after the federal Rule 37(e) amendment took effect, the New York Court of Appeals handed down a seminal decision on spoliation in Pegasus Aviation v. Varig Logistica S.A., 26 N.Y. 3d 543 (2015). The court held that the appellate division had erred in reversing a sanction order imposed by the trial court for the loss of ESI as a result of the failure to implement a litigation hold and multiple computer crashes. The trial court had held that the failure to issue a hold amounted to gross negligence, presumed relevance of the irretrievable ESI, and awarded sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction and striking of defendant's answer. In endorsing the trial court's order, the Court of Appeals reiterated the existing New York standard that "adverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate even in situations where the evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed," implicitly rejecting any incorporation of or movement toward the delineation between sanctions options based on intentional and non-intentional spoliation in the then-two-week-old amendment to Rule 37(e).

The trial and appellate courts in the state accordingly have continued to award more severe sanctions than would be available in federal court in the absence of intentional spoliation. For example, in Arbor Realty Funding v. Herrick, Feinstein, the First Department modified the sanction of dismissal, replacing it with an adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions instead, for the grossly negligent spoliation of ESI as a result of the failure to issue a timely litigation hold, preserve additional relevant custodians' ESI, and suspend routine data destruction, including back-up tape recycling. 140 A.D.3d 607 (1st Dep't 2016). Similarly, in Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, the Second Department affirmed the sanction of an adverse inference instruction for the spoliation of ESI even though plaintiffs had not demonstrated the spoliation was "willful rather than merely negligent." 142 A.D. 3d 520, 526 (2d Dep't 2016). In Ferrara Bros. Bldg. Materials v. FMC Constr., the trial court awarded an adverse inference instruction at trial for the loss of ESI as a result of the replacement of certain of defendants' computers during the pendency of litigation, holding that the sanction was "sufficient to strike a balance between the need to ameliorate any prejudice [arising] from the destruction" and "the absence of demonstrable willfulness on the defendants' part." 2016 WL 6583995, at *4 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. March 30, 2016). In modifying a trial court decision to provide for an adverse inference instruction in lieu of striking an answer, the Second Department noted in Peters v. Hernandez that "striking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct." 142 A.D. 3d 980, 981 (2d Dep't 2016). These decisions suggest that outright dismissal of a complaint or the striking of an answer for gross negligence alone is not a readily available remedy in New York state court; however, the severe sanction of an adverse inference instruction may be.


Intentional spoliators are likely to face similarly extreme and potentially case-terminating sanctions in both New York state and federal courts. However, litigants should be aware that negligent spoliators are subject to different standards, which may result in less certainty concerning what exposure a non-intentional spoliator may face if ESI is lost.


1. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs., 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 469-70, 496-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

2. See Pension Comm., 685 F. Supp. 2d 456; Residential Funding v. DeGeorge Fin., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002).

3. See, e.g., Stinson v. City of New York, 2016 WL 54684 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2016) (applying common law, grossly negligent spoliation resulted in sanction of permissive adverse inference instruction).

4. See, e.g., Cat3 v. Black Lineage, 164 F. Supp. 3d 488 at 496 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (amended rule "is much more comprehensive" and "in some respects more lenient as to the sanctions that can be imposed for violation of the preservation obligation"); Best Payphones, v. City of New York, 2016 WL 792396, at *3 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2016) (since "the application of the new rule does not create issues of feasibility or injustice, the Court will apply the new rule with respect to the electronic evidence at issue here").

5. Cat3, 164 F. Supp. at 501-02. Evidence was subsequently submitted to the court demonstrating that there had been no intentional discovery misconduct, and the sanctions motion was withdrawn. See Cat3 v. Black Lineage, 2016 WL 1584011 (S.D.N.Y. April 6, 2016).

Previously published in New York Law Journal, Feb. 6, 2017.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions