Destruction of Personal Computer Leads to Sanctions
APC Filtration (“APC”) moved the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois to issue sanctions against a former employee, William Becker and his new employer SourceOne in APC Filtration Inc. v. Becker, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76221 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 12, 2007).
APC had initially brought suit against Becker for alleged misappropriation of confidential information and diversion of corporate opportunities. In discovery, APC requested Becker’s personal computer because of admitted communications between Becker and one of APC’s major customers and a major supplier. Becker and SourceOne claimed any communications using that computer were irretrievably lost because Becker’s personal computer had “crashed.” The court required further explanation from Becker. In an affidavit, Becker stated that he had experienced computer problems on March 21, 2007, and that he had brought his computer to a repair shop where he was told that “the mother board and hard drive were shot, and that the computer was not worth fixing.” Therefore, Becker threw it away with “other junk.” However, in his July 24, 2007 deposition, Becker testified that he took the computer to a construction site in McHenry, Illinois, and disposed of it in a dumpster. He admitted this dumpster was approximately 20 miles away from his home.
The court held that the computer was discoverable and Becker and SourceOne had reasonable notice that the computer could become the subject of discovery requests when Becker threw the computer away, some time after March 21, 2007. APC's complaint was filed on March 15, 2007, and counsel for Defendants made his initial appearance on March 19, 2007. Therefore Becker had “reasonable notice” when he disposed of his computer that the computer “could become part of the discovery process” and “had the duty to preserve the computer as evidence prior to the date on which he discarded it.”
The court further held that by disposing of the computer within days of receiving notice of the lawsuit, Becker had acted in bad faith to prevent APC from discovering potentially damaging evidence.
Furthermore, the destruction of the computer impaired APC’s ability to present proof in its diversion claims that Becker had communicated with its customer and supplier. However, because APC had other means of proving its misappropriation of information claims, prejudice from destruction of the computer was less significant. Nevertheless, the conduct warranted sanctions and the court held that certain communications between Becker and the employer’s customer and its supplier were deemed “conclusively proven,” and Becker and SourceOne were required to pay APC’s costs and attorney’s fees in connection with “a) filing and arguing this motion for sanctions; b) third-party discovery that was made necessary by Becker’s destruction of the computer; and c) retaining [a] computer expert.”
