E.E.O.C.v.GMRI,Inc.2017WL5068372(S.D.Fla.2017)

UNITEDSTATESEQUALEMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION,Plaintiff,

v.GMRI,INC.,Defendant.

CaseNo.15-20561-CIV-LENARD/GOODMAN.

UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,S.D.Florida,MiamiDivision.

November1,2017.

EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,Plaintiff,representedbyAnaConsueloMartinez,U.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission.

EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,Plaintiff,representedbyDanielSeltzer,U.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,KimberlyAnneMcCoy,EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,P.DavidLopez,GeneralCounsel,RobertElliotWeisberg,U.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,AarrinBenatraGolson,U.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,BeatrizBiscardiAndre,USEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,CarmenMariaManraraCartaya,USEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,JonathanP.Bryant,UnitedStatesEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,SuzanneL.Nyfeler,UnitedStatesEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission&KristenM.Foslid,EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission.

GMRI,Inc.,Defendant,representedbyAlexisP.Robertson,SeyfarthShawLLP,prohacvice,AndrewL.Scroggins,SeyfarthShaw,LLP,prohacvice,ChristinaM.Janice,SeyfarthShaw,LLP,prohacvice,GerarldL.Maatman,Jr.,SeyfarthShaw,LLp,JayC.Carle,SeyfarthShaw,LLP,prohacvice,JenniferA.Riley,SeyfarthShaw,LLP,prohacvice,MatthewJ.Gagnon,SeyfarthShaw,LLP,prohacvice,MichaelConstantineMarsh,AkermanLLP,AlexandreS.Drummond,SeyfarthShawLLP&ArleneKarinKline,AkemanLLP.

ORDERONEEOC'SMOTIONFORSPOLIATIONANDRULE37(E)SANCTIONS

JONATHANGOODMAN,MagistrateJudge.

JohnHiatt,acritically-acclaimedrockguitarist,pianist,singer,andsongwriterwhosesongshavebeencoveredbyB.B.King,BobDylan,BonnieRaitt,BuddyGuy,EricClapton,KeithUrban,andThreeDogNight(tonamebutafewofmanyperformersfrommyriadmusicalgenres),wroteasongreleasedin1995called"ShreddingtheDocument."Hiatt'schorusinthatsongis:"I'mshreddingthedocument/I'mkeepingmymouthshut."[1]Thenotionthatsomeoneshredded,destroyed,ordiscardeddocuments(or,touseotherphrasesfromHiatt'ssong,"doctoredtheevidence"inordertopursue"acoverup")isattheheartofthesanctionsmotionbeingconsideredhere.

AnalyzingthesanctionsmotionbeginswiththeobservationthatDefendantGMRI,Inc.(a/k/a"Seasons52"inthisOrder)filedasummaryjudgmentmotionagainstPlaintiff[ECFNo.241],theUnitedStatesEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission(the"EEOC").Init,Seasons52arguesthattheEEOC"hascomeupemptyhanded"initsefforttoestablishthatSeasons52restaurantsengagedinanationwidepatternandpracticeofintentionalagediscriminationagainstapplicantsage40andolder.

AfterSeasons52fileditssummaryjudgmentmotion,theEEOCfiledaMotionforSpoliationandRule37(c)Sanctions.[ECFNo.246].Seasons52filedaresponseinoppositiontothesanctionsmotion[ECFNo.259],andtheEEOCfiledareply[ECFNo.260].

Initssanctionsmotion,theEEOCallegesthatSeasons52failedtopreserveandintentionallydestroyedpaperapplicationsandinterviewbooklets.ItalsoallegesthatSeasons52failedtotakeanystepstopreserveemailssentbyortotherestaurantmanagersinvolvedintheveryhiringdecisionschallengedintheEEOC'slawsuit.

Thesanctionsmotionseeksmyriadtypesofspoliationsanctions,includinganOrder(1)prohibitingSeasons52fromintroducingevidenceaboutthecontentoflostemails;(2)permittingtheEEOCtointroduceevidenceoftheemaildestruction;(3)allowingtheEEOCtoarguetothejurythatthelostemailswouldhavecontained

1of24

informationsupportingitsclaim;(4)authorizingtheCourttoconsiderthelostemailargumentsforsummaryjudgmentpurposes;and(5)permittingapermissiveinference,bothatthesummaryjudgmentstageandattrial,thattheemails,hadtheybeenpreserved,wouldmentionaSeasons52preferenceforyoungerapplicants.

UnitedStatesDistrictJudgeJoanA.LenardreferredthesanctionsmotiontotheUndersigned.[ECFNo.256].TheUndersigneddirectedthepartiestosubmitadditionalmemoranda[ECFNo.261],andtheydidso[ECFNos.274;275].Inaddition,theUndersignedheldanevidentiaryhearingonOctober11,2017[ECFNo.297]andentertainedoralargument.Sixwitnessestestifiedattheinitialevidentiaryhearing.

TheUndersignedlaterscheduledasupplementalevidentiaryhearing[ECFNo.298],whichtookplaceonOctober19,2017.[ECFNo.312].Twowitnessestestifiedatthefollow-uphearing.Thesanctionsmotionisawell-briefedoneandisripe.

Initsopposition,Seasons52impliesthatthesanctionsmotionisadirectresponsetoitsdefensesummaryjudgmentmotion.ItimplicitlysuggeststhattheEEOCwasalarmedaboutthedefensesummaryjudgmentmotionandisusingthesanctionsmotionasafrantic,last-minutelegallife-preservertorescueitfromascenariowhereithas"changedthetheoryofitscaseseveraltimes"andyetended"emptyhanded."

TheUndersignedrejectstheunstatedbutnot-too-subtleargumentthatthesanctionsmotionisadirectresponsetothesummaryjudgmentmotion.Seasons52'ssummaryjudgmentmotionwasfiledonJuly31standtheEEOC'ssanctionsmotionwasfiledshortlythereafter,onAugust2nd.Thesanctionsmotion(anditsincorporatedlegalmemorandum)is23-pageslongandreferences58exhibits,allofwhichareattachedtothemotion.SoitishighlylikelythattheEEOCbeganpreparingthesanctionsmotionlongbeforeitreceivedSeasons52'ssummaryjudgmentmotion.Thus,theUndersignedwillassessthesanctionsmotionandtheoppositionwithoutacceptingthetacitargumentthatthesanctionsrequestisaneleventh-hoursmokescreensetuptodeflecttheCourt'sattentionfromapurportedlyweakcase(which,accordingtoSeasons52,wasrevealedinitssummaryjudgmentmotion).

Inanyevent,forthereasonsoutlinedbelow,butwithoutacceptingSeasons52'sinferredtheorythatthetimingofthesanctionsmotionissomehowevidencethattheEEOCrecognizesthepurportedweaknessesinitscase,theUndersigneddeniesinpartandgrantsinpartthemotion.

ThisOrderdoesnotnowprovidethemost-severetypeofreliefsought—permissibleinferencesatthesummaryjudgmentandtrialstages.ButitdoesprovidesomerelieftotheEEOC—i.e.,itmaypresentevidenceofthepurportedlydestroyedand/ormissingpaperapplications,interviewbookletsandguides,andemailstothejury.Moreover,itprovidesotherlimited,potentialrelief:itpermitstheEEOCtorelyonthatevidenceandarguetothejurythatSeasons52actedinbadfaith(asdefinedbyRule37(e)(2))andthat,ifthejuryweretoagreewiththatEEOCtheory,thenitmayinferfromthelossofelectronicallystoredinformation("ESI")thatitwasunfavorabletoSeasons52.

Inaddition,theUndersignedrejectsSeasons52'spositionthatitwasnotunderadutytopreservedocumentsandESIforanylocationotherthanonerestaurantinCoralGables,Florida.Nevertheless,theUndersignedwillnotnowbeauthorizingthepermissibleinferencetypeofsanctionbecausetheEEOChasnotsufficientlyestablishedtwooftherequiredfactors:(1)underapplicableEleventhCircuitlaw,that(forthepaperapplicationsandinterviewbooklets)thesupposedlymissingevidenceiscrucialtothemovant'scase,and(2)that(fortheemailevidence,whichisgovernedbyRule37(e)(2))Seasons52acted"todeprive[theEEOC]oftheinformation'suseinthelitigation."

TheEleventhCircuit'scommonlawofspoliationconcernsthepaperapplicationsandinterviewbooklets;Rule37(e)(2)governstheemailevidence(becauseitiselectronicallystoredinformation).

ThepartieswillbothbepermittedtointroducetothejuryattrialevidenceofmissingdocumentsandESIandthecircumstancessurroundingthedestructionorabsenceofrecords.Thepartiesmayalsomakeargumentsaboutthedestruction(ornon-destruction)ofpaperapplicationsandbookletsandESI,aswellasthepossiblemotivesfortheirallegeddestruction.Andtheywillbeabletopresentcompetingthemesaboutthesignificanceorinsignificanceofthemissingand/ordestroyedmaterial(oriftheyareactuallymissinginthefirstplace).

Inaddition,theparties'abilitytopresentevidenceandargumentaboutthecircumstanceswouldpermittheEEOCtopresent(throughevidenceandclosingargument)itsviewthattheinvestigation'sscopewasnationalandthatSeasons52'sinterpretation(i.e.,thattheactualscopeofthelitigationremainedonlywiththeoneCoralGablesrestaurant)wasincorrectandunreasonable.Likewise,thisOrderwouldpermitSeasons52topresentevidenceandargumentaboutitsinterpretationoftheinvestigation'sscopeandwhyitdeemsitsviewandconducttobereasonable.

2of24

And,concerningtheemailevidence,theEEOCwillbepermitted(underRule37(e)(2))toseekapermissibleinference(butitmustpersuadeajurythatSeasons52actedinbadfaith—i.e.,thatit"actedwiththeintenttodeprive"theEEOCoftheemailevidence's"useinthelitigation."

I.FactualandProceduralBackground

Muchofthefactualbackgroundisundisputed,asitisreflectedinlettersandemails.Butthereisasignificantfactualdisputeaboutwhether,beforethelawsuitwasfiled,Seasons52everlearnedthattheEEOC'sinvestigationwasnationalinscopeand,ifso,whenandunderwhatcircumstancesitgainedthatknowledge.ThisknowledgequestionisimportantbecausetheEEOCmustestablishthatSeasons52wasunderadutytopreservedocumentsandESIwhenthematerialwaslostordestroyedinordertoobtaintheharshersanctionsitseeks.

Seasons52contendsthatitwasunderadutytopreserveforonlyonerestaurantinCoralGablesbecausethetwocomplaintsthattriggeredtheEEOCinvestigationconcernedthatsolelocation.TheEEOC,however,contendsthatSeasons52hadadutytopreserveforallrestaurantsinthecountrybecausethescopeoftheinvestigationexpandedintoanationalinvestigationencompassingallSeasons52restaurants.CentraltothatargumentisanAugust31,2011letterfromtheEEOCtoSeasons52thatpurportedtoexpandtheinvestigationintoanationalone—whichthepartiescallthe"expansionletter."

Seasons52didnotinitiallyarguethatitneverreceivedtheexpansionletter.Instead,itsAugust16,2017responsetothesanctionsmotionadvancedotherarguments.ButattheOctober11,2017evidentiaryhearing,Seasons52contendedforthefirsttimethatitneverreceivedtheexpansionletter,anditusesthisnon-receiptasamajorreasonforitsconclusionthatitwasnotonnoticeofanationalinvestigation(andthereforehadnodutytopreserveinformationotherthanfortheCoralGablesrestaurant).ThisOrderwilldiscussthatletter(andmyriadotherexhibits).

TheUndersigned'sultimateconclusionisthatSeasons52wasunderadutytopreservedocumentsandESIfor11restaurants.Thisconclusiondoesnotadoptthetheoryadvancedbyeitherparty.Instead,itisbasedonmyassessmentthatalthoughtheEEOChasnotestablishedthatSeasons52everreceivedtheAugust31,2011expansionletter(whichmentionsaninvestigation"throughoutthenation"),Seasons52kneworshouldhaveknownofitsobligationtoimplementalitigationholdfordocumentsconcerning11restaurants.ThatisbecauseSeasons52doesnotdisputereceivingaletterfromtheEEOCdatedSeptember1,2011—justonedayaftertheexpansionletter—whichexpresslyrequestedalargeamountofinformationanddocumentsfrommanyrestaurants"duetoanexpansionofthecase."

A.TheEEOC'sPre-HearingVersionoftheFacts

TheEEOC'sversionoftherelevantfactualbackgroundisoutlinedinitsmotion,whichtheCourtexcerptshere(minusmanyofthefootnotesandminussomeoftheargumentandrhetoricandwithsomemodestclarifications,asneeded).

i.Seasons52Was(Purportedly)onNoticeoftheEEOC'sNationwideInvestigation.

AnthonyScornavaccaandHugoAlfarofiledchargesofdiscriminationagainstSeasons52(CoralGables)undertheAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentActinOctoberandDecember2010,respectively.[ECFNos.246-1;246-2].TheEEOCnotifiedSeasons52ofthechargesandexplainedtheEEOC'srecordkeepingregulations.[ECFNos.246-3;246-4].

OnAugust31,2011,theEEOCissuedtheexpansionletter[2]andnotifiedSeasons52thatitwasexpandingtheinvestigationtoincludeSeasons52'shiringpracticesthroughoutthenationastheyaffectaclassofindividuals,applicantsforemployment,becauseoftheirages.[ECFNo.246-5].Thefollowingtwodays,inaseparateletterandemail,theEEOCrequestednationwideinformationthatincluded,amongotherthings,anemploymentrosterforallSeasons52locations[ECFNo.246-6],aswellasapplicationsandinterviewbookletsfor10locations.[ECFNo.246-7].

OnJanuary10,2012,Seasons52apparentlyacknowledgedinaletterthattheEEOC'sinvestigationwasnationwide.[ECFNo.246-8].ThisletteristotheleadEEOCInvestigator,KatherineGonzalez,andwaswrittenbyaSeasons52in-houseparalegalnamedDeborahDubinsky,whodescribedherselfasa"seniorparalegal—EmploymentLaw."[ECFNo.246-8].Inthisletter,DubinskynotedthatshewasattachingarosterofemployeesfromtheSeasons52Naples,Floridarestaurant.Shethenpointedoutthattherecordsdemonstratethat"16.4%ofemployeesatthisrestaurantareovertheageof40."[ECFNo.246-8].AccordingtoDubinsky'sletter,this,alongwithotherrosterspreviouslyprovided,"refutestheallegationthatSeasons52maintainsanationwidehiringpolicythatdiscriminatesagainstindividualsovertheageof40."[ECFNo.246-8].Thus,itisthisparalegalletterwhichtheEEOCcontendssupportsitspositionthat"Seasons52

3of24

acknowledgedthat[the]EEOC'sinvestigationwasnationwide."[ECFNo.246,p.5].

OnJuly16,2013,theEEOCissuedLettersofDeterminationfindingthatSeasons52"engagedinapatternorpracticeofnothiringindividualswhoareovertheageoffortyatitsSeasons52restaurantsthroughouttheUnitedStates."[ECFNo.246-9,p.2].Duringconciliation,[3]theEEOCadvisedSeasons52thatitwasconciliatingonbehalfofanationwideclassofapplicants.[ECFNo.246-10,p.2].[4]

TheEEOCfileditsComplaintonFebruary12,2015.[ECFNo.1].

ii.Seasons52'sDocument-RetentionPoliciesRequirePreservation.

Seasons52'sdocument-retentionpoliciesineffectsince2010requirethepreservationofallapplicationsandinterviewbookletsfornon-hiredapplicantsforatleastthreeyearsand,forhiredapplicants,foraminimumofsixyears.[ECFNo.246-11,8-9].Businessrelatedemailisalsosubjecttoretention.[ECFNo.246-11,11].

Further,accordingtothepolicy,ifthereisaninvestigation,then"anin-house[Seasons52]attorneywillissueanoticeofRecordHoldtoinformEmployeesoftheRecordsthatmustberetaineduntiltheissueisresolved."[ECFNos.246-12,p.5;246-13,p.2].Informationtechnology("IT")professionalsarethentaskedto"collect[]allemailsavailableinthecustodian'semailboxonthedaytheholdissentoutandcontinue[]tosaveallemails(sentandreceived)untiltheholdisreleased."[ECFNo.246-12,p.5].

iii.Seasons52(Supposedly)FailedtoIssueanAppropriateLitigationHold.

WhenSeasons52initiallyreceivedthechargesofdiscrimination,itissuedlitigationholdsdatedDecember16,2010,toGaryMarcoe,ManagingPartnerinCoralGables,andChristineWilson,theDirectorofEmployeeRelations.[ECFNo.246-11,21].Thereafter,SeasonsdidnotissuelitigationholdsforotherlocationsuntilatleastMay27,2015[ECFNos.246-11,20;246-14,pp.48:18-49:2,60:5-61:3,76:15-25],whichwasthreeyearsandeightmonthsaftertheexpansionletter[ECFNo.246-5]andthreemonthsaftertheEEOC'slawsuitwasfiled.[ECFNo.1].

iv.PaperApplications:Tampa,KingofPrussia("KOP"),andCostaMesa.

Seasons52receivedpaperapplicationsattheTampa,KOP,andCostaMesarestaurants.[ECFNo.246-17,p.70].In2011,Seasons52's"litigationteam"collectedmaterialsfromtheselocationsbyaskingmanagerstosendthemtoacentralofficetobescanned.[ECFNo.246-14,pp.30:14-21,52:5-11,57:25-58:20].Nooneissuedalitigationholdorwenttotherestaurantstooverseethecollection(exceptperhapsatCoralGables).[ECFNo.246-14,p.58:7-20].Seasons52failedtoproducealargenumberofapplicationstotheEEOCforthosethreelocations:

Tampa1800applicationsreceivedperManagertestimony205produced

KOP1000applicationsreceivedperManagertestimony325produced

CostaMesa1000applicationsreceivedperManagertestimony322produced

Becausethesestores'limitedapplicationdataproductionisnotrepresentative,theEEOC'sstatisticalanalysisforTampa,KOP,andCostaMesaisbynecessitybasedonproxyCensusdata.[ECFNo.246-17,p.38].AsDr.AliSaad's(Seasons52'sexpert)analysisdemonstrates,theEEOCcontendsthatthisprejudicesitspositionbecauseCensusdatareflectslessunder-hiringofolderapplicantsthanactualapplicantdataateachoftheremainingeightlocationsthatacceptedpaperapplications.[SeegenerallyECFNo.246-21].Specifically,usingapplicationdata,Dr.Saadfoundastatisticallysignificantfailuretohireolderworkersforsevenofeightlocationsandunder-hiringofolderworkersattheeighthlocation.[ECFNo.246-21,p.81].ButusingCensusdata,Saadreportedstatisticalsignificanceatonlytwoofthesameeightlocations,withtworestaurantsslightlyover-hiringolderapplicants.[ECFNo.246-21,p.142].Thus,theEEOCcontendsthattheforceduseofCensusdataunderstatesSeasons52'sdiscriminatoryhiringatthesethreelocationsandthusnegativelyimpactsthereliefitcanrecoverforvictimsofdiscrimination.

v.Seasons52SaysthatitHasNoKnowledge.

AccordinglytotheEEOC,Seasons52claimsthatithasno"knowledgeofthedestructionofapplications,interviewbookletsorotherrelateddocumentsfrom...Tampa,KingofPrussia,[and]CostaMesa."[ECFNo.246-11,15].Seasons52alsorepresentsthatitis"unaware"ofthenumberofapplicationstherestaurantsreceived,notwithstandingthetestimonyofitsmanagers.[ECFNo.246-14,pp.47:14-18,56:21-57:5,58:21-24,59:13-60:3].[5]Seasons52furtherclaimstobeunawareofdatabeinglostatanytime.[ECFNo.246-14,pp.

4of24

41:14-24,46:7-15,52:12-14,59:9-12].

vi.PaperApplications:JacksonvilleandKansasCity.

TheEEOCalsomaintainsthatSeasons52destroyedasignificantnumberofpaperapplicationsfromJacksonvilleandKansasCity:

LocationMin.#PaperAppsReceivedPaperAppsProducedbySeasons52

Jacksonville1,000[ECFNo.246-45,p.56:20-24]126

KansasCityunknown8

Moreover,itarguesthatSeasons52'spreservationeffortswereparticularlytardyandlackadaisical.AlthoughtheEEOCsetdiscoveryhearings[ECFNos.49;80]andrepeatedlyrequestedatimelinefortheproductionofpaperapplications[ECFNo.246-29,pp.1,3],Seasons52madenoefforttocollectpaperdocumentsforthese2locations(JacksonvilleandKansasCity),orotherlocations,untilJanuary2016,11monthsaftertheEEOCfiledthislawsuit.[ECFNos.246-11,17;246-14,pp.67:16-68:16,76:24-25].

Allthewhile,Seasons52representedtotheEEOCthateffortstocollectpaperdatawereunderway.[ECFNo.246-29,p.6("Our[Seasons52's]firstpriorityhasbeenthecollectionandreviewofapplicationsandrelateddocuments.")].AccordingtotheEEOC,thisdelayindicatesthatSeasons52waitedtoolong.

InJacksonville,managerstestifiedthatpaperapplicationsandbookletswereshredded.[ECFNos.246-45,pp.56:20-60:13,79:1-6;246-49,pp.113:24-117:16].YetSeasons52assertsthatithas"noknowledge"ofanydestructionofdocumentsfromJacksonville.[ECFNo.246-14,pp.72:25-73:16].AstoKansasCity,aDecember31,2015fire—10monthsaftertheEEOC'sComplaintwasfiled—destroyedtheapplicationmaterials.[ECFNo.246-14,pp.64:22-65:16,67:3-20].

Thus,becauseSeasons52failedtoproducevirtuallyallofthepaperapplications,theEEOCanalyzedonlyelectronicdataatthesetworestaurants.Toillustratethesignificanceofthis,theEEOCpointstothescenarioattheCoralGablesrestaurant.

InCoralGables,whiletheelectronicdata(392electronicapplicants)suggeststhatolderworkerswerefavored[ECFNo.246-21,p.72],thepaperdatatellsadifferentstory.Duringlitigation,Seasons52produced256paperapplicationsfromCoralGables.[ECFNo.246-26,14].Seasons52,however,hadproducedapproximately900moreCoralGablesapplicationsduringtheEEOC'sinvestigation—applicationsthatitfailedtoproduceinlitigation.Withthecompletepaperdata(1179applications),Dr.SaadacknowledgesthatCoralGablesshowsastatisticallysignificantfailuretohireolderapplicants.[ECFNo.246-21,p.81].

vii.Seasons52FailedtoProduceInterviewBooklets.

During2010and2011,Seasons52gaverestaurantsastandardinterviewbookletinorderto,amongotherthings,provideaninterviewscoringsystemforevaluatingapplicants.[ECFNo.246-27].Whenstoresswitchedtoelectronicapplications,Seasons52switchedtousinganinterviewguide,whichcloselyresembledthebookletandservedthesamegeneralpurposes.[ECFNo.246-28].Intotal,Seasons52producedapproximately2,202bookletsand786guidesfrom32of35restaurants.[ECFNo.246-26,16].Ofthebookletsproduced,Dr.Saadconfirmedthattheywereheavilyskewedtowardshires.[ECFNo.246-36,p.58:18-23].TheEEOCarguesthatthisindicatesthatSeasons52destroyedthousandsofbookletsforunsuccessfulapplicants.

Hiringmanagerstestifiedthatbookletsandguideswererequired,orgenerallyused,inTampa,KOP,Plano,Phoenix,Indianapolis,NorthBethesda,McLean,Naples,Jacksonville,Memphis,andColumbia,butevenfromtheselocations,theEEOCreceivedsignificantlylessbookletsandguidesthanthenumberofapplications.Infact,thereisevidencethat,aftertheEEOC'sexpansionletter,[6]someofthesebookletsandguideswereintentionallydestroyed.[ECFNos.246-46,p.76:2-5(afterinterview,guidesthrownawayatMemphis);246-49,pp.113:24-117:17(policytoshredateachlocationwhereCarmenNetisDirectorofOperationsandapplications/bookletskepttogether);246-31,p.8(NetisDOoverJacksonville,Memphis,Birmingham,Sarasota,Tampa);246-50,p.64:4-22(immediateshreddingofbookletsatCherryHill);246-32,pp.245:6-247:12(TASpaperworkandprescreennotesdestroyedinChicago).

TheEEOCarguesthattheabsenceofSeasons52'sbookletsandguidesishighlyprejudicialtotheEEOCbecauseitadverselyaffectstheanalysisDr.Saadperformed.Dr.Saad'sexpertreportrepeatedlystatesthatthereisnoinformationregardingwhattranspiredduringtheinterview.[ECFNo.246-21,10,11,26,93].

5of24

Seizinguponthisvoidinthedata,Dr.Saadarguesthatolderworkersseekingentry-levelandmid-levelrestaurantservicejobspossess,onaverage,lessabilitythanyoungerworkersseekingthesamejobs,andthatthiswasevidentintheinterviewperformanceofolderworkers.[ECFNos.246-21,11,79;246-36,pp.137:8-139:7,144:12-17].HethenturnstotheNationalLongitudinalStudyofYouth,anexternaldatasource,todiscountthevalueofapplicationsfromolderapplicantsbyanamountupto0.36,whichDr.Saadsaysisthemeasureofolderapplicants'lesserabilitythatwouldhavebeenevidentatinterviews.[ECFNos.246-21,App.A,96-101;246-36,pp.177:24-181:4].Dr.SaadsupposesthatthelongerunemploymentdurationofolderworkersisproxyfortheabilitiespossessedbyapplicantstoSeasons52.[ECFNos.246-21,20-21,97;246-36,pp.148:15-22,173:6-15,174:17-175:2].Dr.Saadacknowledgesthatifscoresfrombookletsandguideswereavailable,thenhewouldhavehadtoconsiderthem.[ECFNo.246-36,pp.61:11-65:7].

viii.Seasons52FailedtoPreserveandProduceRelevantEmails.

Foreachofthe35restaurantsatissueinthislawsuit,Seasons52issuedtwoemailaccounts:onefortherestaurantitself("RestaurantEmail")andonefortheManagingPartner("MPEmail").[ECFNo.246-35,p.19:14-16,19:20-24].Theseemailaccountswereusedforinternalandexternalcommunicationsabout,amongotherthings,hiring,recruiting,andspecificapplicants.

FromFebruary2010untilFebruary2014,emailswerepreservedfor90daysonSeasons52'sNearPointMimosaarchivingsystemandthenautomaticallydeleted.[ECFNos.246-14,p.22:19-21;246-35,pp.10-11].Emailswerepreservedbeyondthat90-dayperiodonlyifalitigationholdwasissued.[ECFNo.246-35,pp.at10-11].InFebruary2014,Seasons52switchedtoaProofPointarchivingsystemthatfeaturedanautomaticthree-yearpreservationforallemails.[ECFNo.246-35,pp.14-18].

Seasons52issuedtworelevantlitigationholds:oneforCoralGablesin2010andasecondinMay2015forall35restaurants.[ECFNo.246-35,pp.21-27].TheEEOCcontendsthatSeasons52madenoothereffortstopreserveemails.[7]TheEEOCalsonotesthatitappearsasthoughSeasons52didnoteventakethebasicstepofpreservinganyharddrives.[ECFNo.246-35,p.47].

Indiscovery,theEEOCrequestedemailsforall35restaurantsfromwhentherestaurantbeganhiringthroughoneyearofthenewrestaurantopenings("NRO").Thedegreeofallegedspoliatedemailvariesdependinguponthelocation'sopeningdateinrelationshiptothedateoftheexpansionletter(which—ifreceived—wouldbeginSeasons52'sdutytopreserve)andwhenSeasons52beganarchivingemailinProofPoint(February2014):

•Plano,Phoenix,Indianapolis,NorthBethesda,andMcCleanopenedbeforetheexpansionletter.AccordingtotheEEOC,hadSeasons52issuedalitigationholduponreceiptoftheexpansionletter,itwouldhavepreservedatleastsomeemailsexchangedduringthefirstyearoftheNRO.(Ofcourse,thispositionassumesthatSeasons52receivedtheso-calledexpansionletter,whichitsaysitdidnot.)

•Jacksonville,KansasCity,GardenCity,OakBrook,Dallas,andLosAngeleslostallemailfrompre-NROthroughoneyearafterrestaurantopening.

•NapleslostallRestaurantEmail;ManagingPartnerDunavan'semailgoesbackto2012.

•Norwood,SantaMonica,Birmingham,Burlington,Houston,Chicago,ChestnutHill,SanDiego,andHoustonopenedin2013,aftertheexpansionletter.[8]TheEEOChassomeemailsduringtheoneyearperiod,butnoemailsfromtheNROhiringtimeframe.

•EdisonandMemphisopenedinJanuary2014,aftertheexpansionletterandimmediatelybeforeSeasons52switchedemailsystems.Attheselocations,theEEOChassomeemailsfromtheManagingPartner/Restaurant,butnotfromthepre-opening,NROhiringtimeframe.

B.Season52'sPre-HearingVersionoftheFacts

Seasons52'sfactualpositionisoutlinedinitsresponseinoppositiontothesanctionsmotion.TheUndersignedexcerptsthesummarywiththesamemodificationsandcaveatsIusedfortheEEOC'sfactualsummary.ManyoftheSeasons52-assertedfactsaresimilartothoselistedintheEEOCversion,buttheyarewordedslightlydifferently.Forsomefacts,Seasons52portraystheminasignificantlydifferentlight.Thatisunderstandable.TheEEOC'sversionhighlightscertainfactsanddescribestheminaplaintiff-friendlyway,andSeasons52emphasizesotherfactsandcasestheminadefendant-orientedway.

Inaddition,theUndersignednotesthatSeasons52'sfactualsummarydiscussesInvestigatorGonzalez'sAugust31,2011letter(theso-called"expansionletter")asthoughithadbeentimelyreceived.Itspre-hearingmemorandaneverassertedtheargumentthatitneverreceivedtheletter.Seasons52later(attheevidentiaryhearing)tookthepositionthatitneverreceivedthisletter(anditpointstoseveralunusualfactors

6of24

surroundingthedocumenttobolsteritsnewwe-never-received-the-letterposition).

i.TheEEOC'sInvestigationBeganwithTwoIndividualChargesofDiscriminationFiledbyUnsuccessfulServerApplicantsatSeasons52inCoralGables.

InNovember2010,Seasons52openedanewrestaurantinCoralGables,Florida.[ECFNo.191-1,1].AfterfailingtosecureServerpositionsattherestaurant,ScornavaccaandAlfarofiledindividualchargesofagediscrimination.[ECFNos.77,29,32,35,40;246-1;246-2].Neitherassertedclass-wideallegationsortheoriesthatextendedbeyondtheirownindividualcircumstances.TheEEOCissuednoticeofthechargesonDecember8,2010andDecember10,2010,respectively.[ECFNos.246-3;246-4].Inturn,Seasons52issuedalitigationholdtotheCoralGablesManagingPartnerandtheemployeerelationsmanagerwhoinvestigatedthechargeallegations.[ECFNo.246-11].

InresponsetotheScornavaccachargeandrelatedrequestsbyinvestigatorGonzalez,Seasons52submittedapositionstatement,producedcopiesoftheapplicationssubmittedbythosehiredforhourlypositions,andsuppliedarosterofallemployees(hourlyandsalaried)hiredbytheCoralGablesrestaurant.[ECFNo.242,70].Later,Seasons52submittedaseparatepositionstatementinresponsetotheAlfarochargeandmadefourmanagersresponsibleforinterviewingapplicantsattheCoralGablesrestaurantavailableforinterview.[ECFNo.242,71-72].

ii.InvestigatorGonzalezSearchedForOtherChargesAgainstSeasons52

SometimeinAugust2011,InvestigatorGonzalezsearchedanEEOCinternalsystemthatpermitsuserstolookupcasesfiledagainstgivenrespondentsandcrossreferencestatutes.[ECFNo.242,73].HersearchturnedupachargefiledbyJerryTaylorwiththeEEOCinIndianapolis.[ECFNo.242,74].

iii.InvestigatorGonzalezRevealedHer"Expanded"Investigation

OnAugust31,2011,InvestigatorGonzalezsentthefollowingshortletter:

ThisisnoticethattheEEOCisexpandingthescopeoftheinvestigationoftheabovereferencedchargeofdiscriminationtoincludethehiringpracticesofthe[sic]Seasons52throughoutthenationastheyaffectaclassofindividuals,applicantsforemployment,becauseoftheirages,undertheAgeDiscriminationof[sic]EmploymentActof1967.

[ECFNo.246-5(emphasisadded)].Theletterdidnotlistanyparticularcharge,specifyanyparticularpositionorclassofpositions(e.g.,hourlyvs.salaried),describeanyspecifichiringpractice,suggestanycategoriesofinformationthattheEEOCmightseek,orraisetheprospectoffuturelitigation.Id.[9]

OnSeptember1,2011,InvestigatorGonzalezsenttheEEOC'sfirstrequestforinformationaboutSeasons52locationsotherthanCoralGables.[ECFNo.246-6].TheEEOCsoughtemploymentapplications,interviewbooklets,andotherdocumentsfromthelocationsopenedduringthe"relevanttimeperiod"ofFebruary1,2010toSeptember1,2011.Id.

ConcerningtherestaurantsatissueintheEEOC'smotion,Seasons52producedapplicationssubmittedbyhourlycandidatesatTampaandKOPonNovember17,2011.[ECFNo.259-1].Seasons52producedapplicationssubmittedattheCostaMesalocationonDecember5,2011.[ECFNo.259-2].TheEEOCneverexplicitlyrequestedapplicationssubmittedattheJacksonvilleorKansasCitylocationsorobjectedtotheirnon-production.

iv.TheEEOCIssuedLettersofDetermination

OnJuly16,2013,theEEOCissuedLettersofDetermination.[ECFNos.246-9;246-10].TheDeterminationsdidnotidentifyanyparticularhiringpracticeasdiscriminatory.Id.InvestigatorGonzalezcouldnotrecallifsherecommendedtoSeasons52thatitchangeanyhiringpracticeorifshetoldSeasons52whowasinthe"class"thattheEEOCvaguelyreferenced,whethertheclassincludedfrontandback-of-the-houseemployees,orhourlyorsalariedemployees,orhowmanypeopletheEEOCestimatedtobeintheclass.[ECFNo.242,82].

InDecember2013,aftertheEEOChadcloseditsinvestigation,anEEOCInvestigatorrequestedinformationforrestaurantsoutsidethe11(CoralGablesandtenothers)thattheEEOChadpotentiallyincludedinitsinvestigation.OnDecember2,2013,Seasons52'scounselwrotetoInvestigatorGonzalezandstatedthatitwas"puzzling"thattheEEOCwouldaskforinformationpertainingto"all"restaurantsaftertheEEOChaddeclaredthatithadconcludeditsinvestigation.[ECFNo.259-7].Seasons52didnotprovideadditional

7of24

information.Id.OnMay23,2014,theEEOCissuedlettersdeclaringanendtoconciliation.[ECFNo.246-10,29].

v.Seasons52ProducedVoluminousESIDuringDiscovery

AfternegotiatingwiththeEEOCformonthsregardinganESIstipulation,Seasons52collectedallavailableemailandworkstationdocumentsfromover100custodians.[ECFNo.259-3,2-3].Overthesubsequentmonths,Seasons52continuedtoinvestigateandcollectESIforanever-growinglistofadditionalcustodiansdemandedbytheEEOC.[ECFNo.259-3,4].Intotal,Seasons52collectedover2,300gigabytesofdata,totalingmorethan5,500,000uniquedocuments.Id.Seasons52thenappliedmorethan1,500negotiated,broadsearchtermstothecollecteddata.[ECFNo.259-3,5].Thesearchesreturnedapproximately620,000documentsforreviewandcosthundredsofthousandsofdollarstocomplete.Id.About31,000ESIrecords,totalinginexcessof110,000pages,wereproduced.[ECFNo.259-3,6].[10]

Seasons52contendsthattheemails'valuewasmarginalatbest,andonlyasmallnumberweredeemedworthyofsubmissiontotheCourtinitssummaryjudgmentfilings.

C.TheEvidentiaryHearings

i.TheFirstEvidentiaryHearing

Sixwitnessestestifiedatthefirstevidentiaryhearing.TheEEOCandSeasons52eachcalledanexpertwitness.TwooftheotherwitnesseswereSeasons52attorneys.ASeasons52in-houserecordscoordinatoralsotestified,asdidanexecutivefromitslitigationsupportvendor.

TheUndersignedisnotgoingtosummarizehereallthetestimonyfromallsixwitnesses.Instead,thisOrderwilldiscussonlytherelevanthighlights.Andthesummarywillnotbeintheorderinwhichthewitnessestestified.

1.DawnStoewe

FormerlyknownasDawnRodda,DawnStoeweisseniorvicepresidentoflitigationandemploymentforSeasons52.[11]In2010,shewasseniorassociatecounselintheemploymentlawarea.ShedidnotretainoutsidecounselforSeasons52afteritreceivedtheEEOC'snoticeofchargeforAlfaro.Andshedidnotretainoutsidecounselduringtheinvestigation.Shedid,however,retaincounselfortheconciliationprocess.StoeweacknowledgedthattheEEOC'sinitialnoticeliststherecord-keepingrequirement—i.e.,preservingthepayrollandpersonnelrecordsuntildispositionofthecharge.

StoeweissuedalitigationholdtoMarcoeattheCoralGablesrestaurantandtotheheadofemployeerelationsandtheheadoftheHumanResourcesDepartment.ShealsosentacopytoSeasons52'sITDepartment,toimplementthelitigationhold.Stoewesaidthatshedidnotnecessarilythinkthatlitigationwasanticipatedwhensheissuedthelitigationhold.ThelitigationholdconcernedonlythetwoclaimsofdiscriminationintheoneCoralGablesrestaurant.

DatedDecember10,2010,theEEOC'snoticeofchargeforAlfarowassenttothegeneralmanageroftheSeasons52CoralGablesrestaurant.Box1ontheformnoticewaschecked—"noactionisrequiredbyyouatthistime."[ECFNo.246-4,p.1].Page2ofthenotice,however,explainedtheEEOC's"RulesandRegulations"for"ChargesofDiscrimination."[ECFNo.246-4,p.2].Itreferredtherecipientto29CFRPart1602andexplainedthattheseregulations"generallyrequirerespondentstopreservepayrollandpersonnelrecordsrelevanttoachargeofdiscriminationuntildispositionofthechargeorlitigationrelatingtothecharge."Id.(emphasisadded).Stoewesaidthatshe"may"havereceivedthisNotice.Eitherway,though,sheissuedalitigationholdfortheCoralGablesrestaurant.

StoeweagreedthatsheandEEOCInvestigatorGonzalezhadanemailexchangeinSeptember2011concerningtheagency'srequestforadditionalinformationanddocumentsforallSeasons52restaurantswhichexistedintheUnitedStatesanditsterritoriesduringtherelevanttimeperiod.SheadvisedInvestigatorGonzalezthatSeasons52wouldneedtocreatereportsinordertocomplybuttestifiedthatshedoesnotagreethatshewasconsideringthepossibilityoflitigationatthatpoint.

StoewewasaskedquestionsaboutInvestigatorGonzalez'sSeptember1,2011letter,whichexpresslyreferences(inthe"Re"lineinthecenteroftheletter)onlythetwochargesfromtheCoralGablesrestaurant.[ECFNo.246-6,p.1].Thefirstsentenceoftheletter,however,mentions"theexpansionofthecase,"astatuswhichtheletterlistedasthereasonfortheEEOC'spositionthatit"requiresadditionalinformationandrecords"forrestaurantsotherthantheCoralGablesoneduringtherelevanttimeperiod.Id.Theletterdefinestherelevanttimeperiodasbeginning"300daysprecedingthedatetheScornavaccacasewasfiled,which

8of24

beginsonoraboutFebruary1,2010topresent."[ECFNo.246-6,p.3].

StoewefurthertestifiedthatshedidnotknowthattheEEOCwasexpandingtheinvestigationtoincludeotherrestaurants.Instead,shesaidthatherbeliefwasthattheEEOCwasmerelyrequestingdocumentsfromotherrestaurantsinconnectionwiththeexisting,limitedinvestigationintotwochargesarisingfromtheoneCoralGablesrestaurant.

ConcerningtheAugust31,2011letter,Stoewetestifiedthatshefirstsawitthedaybeforethehearing(i.e.,inOctober2017).ShealsotestifiedaboutherbeliefthatnoonefromSeasons52everreceivedtheAugust31,2011letter.

AlthoughtheSeptember1,2011letter,whichSeasons52didreceive,requestedbookletsandapplicationsforotherSeasons52restaurants,Stoewedidnotissuealitigationholdforthoserestaurants.

By2012,Stoewehadtransferredprimaryresponsibilityforthemattertoanotherin-houseattorney,SethRivera,whomshesupervises.SherecalleddiscussingaJuly16,2013EEOClettertoRivera.Entitled"LETTEROFDETERMINATION,"theletterconcernsonlythechargefiledbyAlfaro.[ECFNo.246-9].Thesecondpageofthelettersaysthattheevidence"supportsafindingthatRespondent[i.e.,Seasons52]engagedinapatternorpracticeofnothiringindividualswhoareovertheageof40atitsSeason52restaurantsthroughouttheUnitedStates."[ECFNo.246-9,p.4(emphasissupplied)].TheletteralsosaysthattheEEOCwouldadviseof"thecourtenforcementalternativesavailabletotheCommission"ifSeasons52"declinestodiscusssettlementorwhen,foranyotherreason,asettlementacceptabletotheofficeDirectorisnotobtained."Id.(emphasisadded).

Despitethe"throughouttheUnitedStates"language,Stoewetestifiedthatsheconstruedtheletterasconcerningonlytheonecharge(fromAlfaro)attheonerestaurantandimmediatelyquestionedtheEEOC'scommentsandconclusionsbeyondtheonecharge.Shealsosaidthatshedidnotthinkthelettermeantthatlitigationwasimminent(eventhoughitmentions"courtenforcementalternatives").Inaddition,shedidnot,afterreceivingthisletter,issuealitigationholdtosupplementtheearlier-issuedonefortheCoralGablesrestaurant.

TheEEOCfileditslawsuitagainstSeasons52onFebruary12,2015,andSeasons52issuedalitigationholdbeyondtheCoralGablesrestaurantapproximatelythreemonthslater.

StoewedidnotpersonallyinterviewallthecustodiansofSeasons52'sdocumentsandESI,althoughsomeonefromitslegalteaminterviewedsomeofthecustodians.

WhenquestionedbySeasons52'scounsel,StoeweexplainedthatInvestigatorGonzaleznevertoldherthatshewaslookingintotheEEOCchargesatotherSeasons52restaurants.Likewise,shesaidsheneveraskedInvestigatorGonzalezwhatshemeantbytheterm"expandedinvestigation."

InaSeptember30,2011lettertotheEEOC,Stoewelistedthe10otherrestaurantlocationsduringtherelevanttimeperiod.Thelawsuitconcerns35Seasons52locations.StoewesaidthatshedidnotrealizeuntilthelawsuitwasfiledthattheEEOCwasfocusingonhiringatnewrestaurantopenings.

StoewesaidthatsheneverinstructedanyonetodestroyrecordsandneverintendedtodeprivetheEEOCofinformation.

2.SethRivera

RiveraisaseniorassociatecounselatSeasons52.[12]HetestifiedthatheneversawtheAugust31,2011letteruntiltheweekoftheOctober2017hearing.HetestifiedthatthisletterisnotinSeasons52'sfilesandhedoesnotrecognizeit.HedoesrecalltheSeptember1,2011letter,though.HesaidthathealwaysviewedthescopeoftheEEOC'sinvestigationasthetwochargesattheoneCoralGablesrestauranteventhoughtheagencyaskedforrecordsfromotherrestaurantsandmentionedanexpandedscope.

Rivera,whotookoverday-to-dayresponsibilityforthetwochargesintheSeptemberthroughDecember2011timeframe,saidthathedidnotissuealitigationholdbecausehewasalreadyhimselfholdinginformationsenttohimbytherestaurants.HetestifiedthathedidnotconsidertheJuly16,2013letter(whichmentionedanunlawfulhiringpracticepattern"atSeasons52restaurantsthroughouttheUnitedStates")togenerategroundsforalitigationholdbeyondtheinitialoneforonlytheCoralGablesrestaurant.

AccordingtoRivera,InvestigatorGonzalezneversaidthatsheortheEEOCwereinvestigatingotherlocations.Hepointedoutthatsheneveridentifiedanyotherchargingparties.He"believes"thatheaskedInvestigatorGonzalezwhyshewasaskingforinformationaboutotherrestaurants,butthatshewas"notforthcoming."In2012,InvestigatorGonzalezaskedtointerviewmanagersaffiliatedwiththe10restaurantsSeasons52identifiedasbeinginoperationduringtherelevanttimeperiod.Buthesaidthatthisdevelopmentdidnot

9of24

causehimtoconcludethattheEEOC'sinvestigationhadexpandedbeyondtheonerestaurant.

InaDecember2,2013emailtoInvestigatorGonzalez,RiveracomplainedabouttheEEOC'srequestforinformationconcerningallSeasons52restaurants,notmerelythe10restaurantspreviouslymentioned.[ECFNo.316-21].

RiverasaidthattheEEOC'sconciliationproposaldidnotidentifyaclass,didnotidentifyotherclassmembers,anddidnotidentifyspecificemploymentpractices.Hedidnotissuealitigationholdwhenherealizedthecasewouldnotberesolvedinconciliationbecausetheinvestigation(wherealitigationholdhadbeenissued)wascomplete.

RiverasaidthathedoesnotrecallseeingaJanuary10,2014letterfromSeasons52paralegalDubinsky(whomentionedthatcertainevidence"refutestheallegationthatSeasons52maintainsanationwidehiringpolicythatdiscriminatesagainstindividualsovertheageof40").[ECFNo.316-15(emphasisadded)].

3.TerryCarter

TerryCarterisnowalegalspecialist.Attimesrelevanttothesanctionsmotion,hewasaSeason52recordscoordinator.[13]Duringdiscovery,Season52designatedhimasaRule30(b)(6)witnesstoprovidedepositiontestimonyaboutitsrecordsretentionpolicies.Atthehearing,hetestifiedaboutSeason52'swritten"recordsretention"policy,whichhasaMay12,2010effectivedate.[ECFNo.246-13].

Page2ofSeason52'spolicycontainsasectionentitled"RecordHold."[ECFNo.246-13,p.2].ItdiscussesthestepsSeason52willtake"intheeventofalawsuit,investigationoraudit[.]"Id.(emphasisadded).ItsaysthatSeason52"willtakeallreasonableeffortstopreserveBusinessRecordsandNon-BusinessRecordsrelevanttothematter."Id.Itfurtherprovidesthat"anin-houseCompanyattorneywillissueanoticeofRecordHoldtoinformEmployeesoftheRecordsthatmustberetaineduntiltheissueisresolved."Id.(emphasisadded).TheprovisionalsonotesthatSeasons52"recognizesitsdutytonotdestroyrelevantRecordsunderapplicablelaws,evenifthoseRecordsnolongerserveavalidbusinesspurposeorwouldotherwisebesubjecttodestructionundertheSchedule."Id.(emphasisinoriginal).

Page6ofDarden'spolicyispartofAppendixA,whichprovidesdefinitions.[ECFNo.246-13,p.6]."Recordhold"isdefined,inpart,asfollows:"AnannouncementthatdestructionofBusinessRecordsshouldbehalteduntilfurthernoticebytheresponsiblein-houseCompanyattorney."Id.ThedefinitionalsonotesthataRecordHoldmaybeissuedbecauseof,amongotherreasons,"athreatenedlegalproceeding"ora"governmentinvestigationoraudit."Id.(emphasisadded).ThedefinitionalsoprovidesthataRecordHold"trumpsthedestructionofRecordsthatwouldotherwisebepermittedundertheRecordRetentionschedule."Id.(emphasisadded).Finally,thedefinitionnotesthat"[o]ncetheRecordHoldisliftedbytheresponsiblein-houseCompanyattorney,RecordsmayagainbedestroyedaccordingtotheRecordsRetentionSchedule."Id.

Seasons52'snewerrecordsretentionpolicywentintoeffectinJanuary2013.[ECFNo.246-12].The"RecordHold"sectionisonpage5.[ECFNo.246-12,p.5].Itsfirstsentenceis:"Intheeventofalawsuit,investigationoraudit,theCompanywilltakeallreasonableeffortstopreserveBusinessRecordsandNon-BusinessRecordsrelevanttothematter."[ECFNo.246-12,p.5(emphasisadded)].Itthenexplainsthat,"[f]orallmatters,anin-houseCompanyattorneywillissueanoticeofRecordHoldtoinformEmployeesoftheRecordsthatmustberetaineduntiltheissueisresolved."Id.(emphasisadded).Thisnewerrecordsretentionpolicyalsospecificallymentionsemails:"InformationTechnologycollectsallemailsavailableinthecustodian'semailboxonthedaytheholdissentoutandcontinuestosaveallemails(sentandreceived)untiltheholdisreleased."Id.(emphasisadded).

Page12ofSeasons52'sJanuary2013recordspolicydiscussesthe"LitigationHold"measures.[ECFNo.246-12,p.12].Itestablishestheprocedure"ifaLitigationHoldhasbeenissued"bythelawdepartment:"thedestructionofrelevantcopiesofBusinessRecordsmustbesuspendeduntilnotifiedbytheissuingdepartment."Id.(emphasisinoriginal).Page16ofthepolicyhasasectionentitled"RecordsunderRecord/LitigationHold."[ECFNo.246-12,p.16].Itsays:"IfyourrecordsareunderaRecord/LegalHold,donotdestroyrecordsyouarerequiredtomaintainuntilyouhavebeenadvisedbythelawdepartmenttodootherwise.Thisincludescopiesandallformats."Id.(emphasisinoriginal).

Seasons52alsohada"RecordsRetentionSchedule"whichCartersaidwasineffectfrom2013onward.HesaidthatSeasons52usedadifferentschedulebefore2013.Inadeclarationhesigned(andwhichtheEEOCsubmittedinthiscase[ECFNo.246-11,p.3]),however,Cartersaidthattherecordsretentionschedulewasineffectfrom2010to2012.Heconcededatthehearingthathisdeclarationwasincorrectonthatpoint.HefurthertestifiedthathedidnotknowwhetherSeasons52'srecordsretentionschedulefrom2010to2013waseverproducedtotheEEOC.

10of24

Accordingtopage13oftheschedulewhichwentintoeffectin2013,Seasons52wasrequiredtokeepforthreeyearsrecordsregarding"employeeselection/recruiting,"anditwasalsorequiredtokeepforsixyearsdocumentsregarding"specificemployees,"whichincludesdocumentsabout"hiring."[ECFNo.306-6,p.14].

Inaddition,page34oftheschedulerequiresSeasons52toretaindocumentsfor"ClaimsandLitigation"forwhatitdescribesas"ACT+10,"whichmeans"whileactiveplusyearsshown."[ECFNo.306-6,pp.13,35].Thedescriptionof"ClaimsandLitigation"materialsare"recordsrelatedtothreatenedorassertedlitigationorgovernmentinvestigation."[ECFNo.306-6,p.35(emphasisadded)].Therefore,thepolicyrequiredSeasons52tokeepdocumentsandothermaterialsconcerningtheEEOC's"governmentinvestigation"foratleast10yearsafteritwasnolongeractive.(Ofcourse,determiningthescopeoftheEEOC'sinvestigationisacriticalandnecessarycomponentofconcludingwhetherSeasons52'sownproceduresmanualrequiredtheretentionofmaterialsforrestaurantsotherthanCoralGablesand,ifso,whentheobligationwastriggered.)

AccordingtoCarter'sdeclaration,thefirstlitigationholdSeasons52initiatedwasdoneonDecember16,2010,anditwasissuedbyStoewe.[ECFNo.246-11,21].HisdeclarationfurthernotesthatasecondlitigationholdwasissuedonMay27,2015(aboutthreemonthsafterthelawsuitwasfiled).[ECFNo.246-11,20].HeisnotawareofanyotherlitigationholdwhichSeasons52implementedinthecase.Atthehearing,CartersaidthathewasnotawareofthesubjectmatteroftheMay2015litigationhold.ButinhisRule30(b)(6)deposition,hetestifiedthatthelitigationholdcoveredapplicationmaterialsandinterviewbooklets.[ECFNo.246-14,p.62:15-23].

Carteralsoexplainedthathelearned,aspartoftheprocessofbeingtransformedintoSeason52'sRule30(b)(6)witnessonrecordsretention,thatSeason52collectedpaperapplicationsandinterviewbookletsfrom11locations(CoralGablesplus10others)in2011.

Forrestaurantsotherthanthe11locations,CarterexplainedthatSeason52didnotstartcollectingrecordsuntillate2015orearly2016.Moreover,hesaidthatheneverheardthatthelitigationteamactuallywenttoanylocationstocollectdocumentsotherthantheCoralGablesrestaurant.CarteralsosaidthataDecember31,2015fireattheKansasCitylocationdestroyedrecords.

4.RogerSmith

RogerSmithisthechiefinformationofficerandmanagingdirectorofe-discoveryservicesforStrategicLegalSolutions("SLS"),alitigationsupportvendor.Hehasworkedinthee-discoveryfieldfor14years.Seasons52retainedSLSinlate2015(whichismanymonthsafterthelawsuitwasfiled).SLSreceived2.5terabytesofESI,consistingof12.5milliondocuments.HedidnotknowhowmanypagesofESIweresubmitted.

SmithexplainedthatSLSorganizedtheESIbycustodian,whichdoesnothavetobeaperson.Alocationoradepartment,forexample,canbeacustodian.HesaidthatSLSobtainedESIfrom130custodians,mostlyindividualsandspecificrestaurants.SLSde-duped(shortforde-duplicated,whichmeanstoremoveduplicatecopiesofthesamedocument)theentire12.5-milliondocumentproduction,leaving5.5milliondocuments.Searchtermswereappliedtothe5.5milliondocuments,whichledtothefindingof665,000documents.Ofthose,30,000weredeemedresponsiveandnotprivilegedandwerethereforeproduced.

SmithsaidthathedisagreedwiththeEEOC'scontentionthatitdidnotreceiveindiscoveryemailsfromcustodiansonalist.Hesaidthat8,000emailswereattributable(meaningtheindividualwasinthe"to,""from,""cc"or"bcc"fields)totheindividuals.

AccordingtoSmith,Seasons52spentmorethan$700,000ine-discoveryprojectsforthislawsuit.

5.Dr.DavidNeumark

Dr.NeumarkistheEEOC'sexpertwitness.Alaboreconomist,Dr.Neumarkconcluded,bywayofsummary,thattheevidenceisconsistentwithagediscriminationbySeasons52initsrestaurants.

Heexplainedthathethoughthewasmissing"anawfullot"ofpaperapplications.Forthoserestaurantswherehereceivedanadequatesample,hecouldperformastraightforwardanalysis.Fortheothers,heneededtouseexternalbenchmarksinordertoperformthecomparisonnecessaryforhisanalysis.

Healsoexplainedthathecouldnotanalyzepaperapplicationsatsomelocations.Heusedelectronicapplicationdataforhisanalysisandusedpaperapplicationswhentheywereavailableandappearedunbiased.Forthreerestaurants,however,hehadnoelectronicapplicationsandonlysuspectorbiasedpaperapplications,sohewasforcedtouseexternalbenchmarks.Oncross-examination,heconcededthathecannotconclusivelysaythatpaperapplicationsfromthreerestaurantswereinfactmissingandthathehadnoevidencethatSeasons52actuallydestroyedorlostthepaperapplications.

11of24

Inaddition,Dr.Neumarkconcededoncross-examinationthathecannotopineonthenumberofmissingapplicationsfromthethreerestaurantsanddoesnotknowhowmanyoftheapplicantsareunderorover40-yearsold.

Dr.Neumarksaidthathewouldhaveincludedpaperapplicationsinhisanalysisiftheyhadbeenavailable.

AlthoughDr.Neumarkwasabletoreachcertainconclusionsandrenderopinions,hesaidthathisresultswouldhavebeen"statisticallystronger"with"anincreaseinprecision"ifmoreinformationhadbeenprovided.Butheconcededoncross-examinationthathehasnevertakenthepositionthathisconclusionswerecompromisedorareinvalidbecauseofthemissinginformation.

6.Dr.AliSaad

Dr.AliSaad,alaboreconomist,isSeasons52'sexpertwitness.Hewasretained"severalyearsago"buthewasnotgivenaspecificassignmentinthislawsuituntillate2016orearly2017.HereceivedDr.Neumark'sreportandpreparedhisownreport.

Basically,Dr.SaadcriticizedthemethodologyandanalysisusedbyDr.Neumark.Concerningthespoliationissue,however,Dr.Saadsaidthatthemissingdatadidnotpreventhimfromofferingreliableopinions.HesaidthatheisawareoftheEEOC'sspoliationargumentconcerningthepaperapplicationswhicharemissingfromthethreerestaurantsbutmadetwopointsaboutit:(1)otherstepscouldbetaken,and(2)atanaggregatelevel(amethodDr.Neumarkusedthatdiffersfromarestaurant-by-restaurantapproach),theimpactwouldnotbesubstantial.

Inaddition,Dr.SaadtestifiedthattheabsenceofpaperapplicationsfromtheJacksonvilleorKansasCitystoreswouldnothaveimpactedDr.Neumark'sopinionsbecausehehadalltheelectronicapplicationdatafromthoselocations.

ii.TheFollow-UpEvidentiaryHearing

TheUndersignedrequiredasecond,follow-upevidentiaryhearinginordertoobtaintestimonyfromtheEEOC'sleadinvestigatorandfromSeasons52'sprimaryin-houseparalegal.ThespecificreasonconcernstheAugust31,2011letter,whichSeasons52nowcontendsitdidnotreceive.ThatletteristheonewhereInvestigatorGonzalezadvisedSeasons52thatthescopeoftheEEOC'sinvestigationwasexpandingtoincludethehiringpracticesoftheSeasons52restaurants"throughoutthenation."ThisistheletterwhichtheEEOCpointsto(amongothers)tosupportitsargumentthatSeasons52wasunderadutytopreservedocumentsforallSeasons52restaurantsthroughouttheentirecountryduringthetimeframeatissue.

TheEEOCdidnotsendtheAugust31,2011letterbycertifiedmail,returnreceiptrequested;overnightmail;orotherformofdeliverywhichwouldconfirmreceipt.TheletteritselfdidnotsaythatitwasalsobeingsenttoSeasons52byemail.Inaddition,Seasons52arguedthattheletterhasseveralotheraspectsthatareoddandsupportitscurrentpositionthatitneverreceivedtheletter:(1)InvestigatorGonzalez'ssignatureiscompletelydifferentfromhersignatureonaletterdatedtheverynextday;(2)thelettercontainsanincorrectzipcode;and(3)thephonenumberunderInvestigatorGonzalez'snameisincorrectbecauseitismissingonenumber.Seasons52alsocontendsthatitdoesnothaveacopyoftheletterinitsownrecordsandthatalthoughitreceivedaletterdatedSeptember1,2011fromInvestigatorGonzalezwhichmentions"expansionofthecase,"thatletterdoesnotsayhowthecasehadexpanded.

TheUndersignedthoughtitimportanttoreceivetestimonyfromSeasons52'sin-houseparalegalbecausealaterlettershewrotetotheEEOCseeminglycontradictsSeasons52'spositionthatitneverrealizedtheinvestigationwasactuallyanationalinvestigation,extendingbeyondCoralGables.Specifically,DubinskywroteaJanuary10,2012lettertoInvestigatorGonzalezwhichsaidthatcertainevidenceproducedbySeasons52totheEEOC"refutestheallegationthatSeasons52maintainsanationwidehiringpolicythatdiscriminatesagainstindividualsovertheageof40."[ECFNo.306-22,p.3(emphasisadded)].TheUndersignedthereforescheduledafollow-uphearinginordertoreceivetestimonyfromInvestigatorGonzalezandDubinsky.

1.InvestigatorKatherineGonzalez

Nowasupervisoryinvestigator,KatherineGonzalezwasanEEOCinvestigatorattimesrelevanttothismotion.ShestartedinvestigatingchargesofagediscriminationattheSeasons52CoralGablesrestaurantafterAlfarofiledachargeofagediscriminationin2010.

AccordingtoInvestigatorGonzalez,thescopeofherinvestigationchangedandexpandedtocoverallSeasons52restaurantsnationwide.ShetestifiedatlengthabouttheAugust31,2011letter(whichshecalls

12of24

the"expansionletter")andherSeptember1,2011letter(whichshecallsthe"requestforinformation"or"RFI"letter).

InvestigatorGonzaleztestifiedthatshepersonallysignedbothletters.Sheacknowledgedthathersignaturesappearsignificantlydifferentbutexplainedthatshehas"two"signaturesandusesthem"interchangeably."Onesignatureisusedwhensheisinahurry,anditisasquiggly-typesignature,whiletheotherisamore-deliberatesignature.Butsheusedthemore-deliberatesignatureontheAugust31,2011letter,whichisonlyaboutathirdofapage,andusedthequick-typesignatureonthetwo-and-a-halfpageSeptember1,2011letter.Shedoesnothaveanexplanationforthisbutdidnotquestionthelogicalassumptionthatthesquigglysignaturewouldhavebeenusedfortheshorter,August31stletter(eventhoughitwasn't).

InvestigatorGonzalezsaidthatshesentbothlettersbyemailandstandardmail.Itisnotherpracticetosendlettersbycertifiedmail,norisitherpracticetowrite"viaemail"ortomakeasimilarnoteontheactualletterseither.SheexplainedthatherhandwritteninvestigativecaselogconfirmsthattheAugust31,2011letterwasinfactsentbybothemailandstandardmailtoSeasons52.[ECFNo.316-5,p.3].

Shetestifiedthatthelogisarunningsummaryofthemore-importantdevelopmentsinaninvestigation.Thelog,however,isnotwithoutitsinconsistencies.

First,InvestigatorGonzalezexplainedthatthelogshowsthatshesenttheAugust31,2011"expansionletter"onSeptember1st,notAugust31st.Second,shedidnotloginsequentialordertheallegedSeptember1,2011mailingofbothletters.Instead,shelisteditafteraSeptember7,2011entryandbeforeaSeptember13,2011entry.Sheinsertedanarrownexttotheout-of-sequenceSeptember1,2011entrytoshowthatitshouldhavebeenenteredearlier(i.e.,higheruponthelog).Thearrow,however,leadstoaspotbelowtheSeptember2,2011entry,nottheAugust31,2011entry.Third,thelogdoesinfacthaveabebtryforAugust31,2011.Itshowsthatsheinterviewedtwomanagers.Butitdoesnotshowthatshedrafted,edited,finalized,ormailedanyletteronthatsameday.

Inanyevent,hercaselogentryforSeptember1,2011says"mailed/emailaddt'lRFItoR&expansionletter."[ECFNo.316-5,p.3].The"R"referstoRespondent,whichisSeasons52.Shetestifiedthatthisentryreferstotwoseparatedocuments:theadditionalRFIletter(datedSeptember1)andtheexpansionletter(datedAugust31).ButSeasons52suggestedthatthisentryreferstoonlyoneletter—theSeptember1,2011letter—becausetheSeptember1letterexpresslymentionsan"expansion"andalsorequestsadditionalinformation.Therefore,accordingtoSeasons52'sinterpretation,theout-of-placelogentrycouldeasilyrefertoonlytheSeptember1letter.ButregardlessofSeasons52'safter-the-factargument,InvestigatorGonzalezsaidthatsheiscertainthatshemailedbothletterstoSeasons52onSeptember1.

ShedidnotrememberifsheplacedbothlettersinoneenvelopetoSeasons52orwhethersheplacedeachinaseparateenvelope.

But,eitherway,shedoesnothaveacopyoftheemailinherfile,andhercomputerdoesnotreflectanemaildatedAugust31,2011orSeptember1,2011either.Similarly,inresponsetoaquestionfromtheUndersigned,theEEOC'scounselrepresentedthatitsearchedhercomputerbeforethehearinganddidnotfindanyevidenceoftheemail.

InvestigatorGonzaleztestifiedtoherstrongbeliefthatSeasons52didinfactreceivetheAugust31,2011expansionletter.ShesaiditwassentoutatthesametimeasherSeptember1,2011letter,whichSeasons52didreceive.Also,althoughittoocontainedanincorrectzipcode,theSeptember11letterwasreceivedbySeasons52.

Inaddition,InvestigatorGonzalezsaidthatshehadconversationsandcommunicationswithSeasons52'scounselandlegalstaffinwhichtheydiscussedherrequestforrecordsfromallSeasons52restaurantswhichwereopeninthenationatthetime.And,shenoted,Seasons52providedalltheinformationsherequestedeventhoughherrequestsinvolvedrecordsfromacrosstheentirecountry.

Similarly,Seasons52permittedhertointerviewmanagersfromrestaurantsacrossthecountry,notmerelyatCoralGables.Thus,sheopined,itwouldbe"nonsensical"forSeasons52topermithertotakealloftheseinvestigativestepsifthescopeofherinvestigationwasonlytheoneCoralGableslocation.

Likewise,InvestigatorGonzalezsaidthatitis"hardtobelieve"thatSeasons52'sattorneyswouldhavereceivedherSeptember1,2011letter(whichtheydid)andnotquestionthephrase"basedupontheexpansionofthecase"iftheyactuallywereundertheimpressionthattheinvestigationconcernedonlyonerestaurant.TheSeptember1,2011lettercontainedadefinitionoftherelevanttimeperiod,andbothsidesagreethatthisdefinitionencompasses11restaurants,includingCoralGablesandNaples,whichInvestigatorGonzalezlaterlearnedhadbeenopenedbeforeNovember2nd.

13of24

DuringitsexaminationofInvestigatorGonzalez,theEEOCintroducedaFebruary2012letterfromSeasons52,respondingtoherrequestforalistofrestaurantsacrossthecountry,dividedbyregion.[ECFNo.316-16].Seasons52respondedandprovidedalist,whichshowedfourdirectorsforregionsencompassing21restaurants.[ECFNo.316-17].

InvestigatorGonzalezalsonotedthatSeasons52permittedhertoconducttelephoneinterviewsofmanagersandthatsheaskedthemquestionsaboutrestaurantsotherthanCoralGables.

Shealsohighlightedthefactthatsheneverreceivedan"undeliverable"noticefromtheU.S.PostalServicefortheAugust31,2011letter.Shesaidthatshereceivesthesenotices"allthetime."

TofurtherbolstertheEEOC'sviewthatSeasons52knewofthenationalscopeoftheinvestigation,InvestigatorGonzalezreferredtoaJuly16,2013LetterofDeterminationforthechargefiledbyAlfaro.[ECFNo.316-19].Thelettermentionedthatevidencerevealedunlawfulemploymentpractices"atRespondent'sCoralGablesrestaurantandRespondent'srestaurantsnation-wide."[ECFNo.316-19,p.1(emphasisadded)].Anditalsosaidthat"[t]heevidence,includingstatisticaldata,supportsafindingthatRespondentengagedinapatternorpracticeofnothiringindividualswhoareovertheageoffortyatitsSeason52restaurantsthroughouttheUnitedStates."[ECFNo.316-19,p.3(emphasissupplied)].

InvestigatorGonzalezalsoexplainedthatshespokewithRiveraonthetelephoneaboutthefindingsbeforetheLetterofDeterminationwasactuallyissued.TheEEOCcallsthisa"pre-determinationinterview"or"PDI."ShesaidthatshedoesnotrecallspecificallymentioningtoRiveratheCoralGablesrestaurantduringherPDIandthatshedidnotprovidearestaurant-by-restaurantstatus.ShesaidthatRiveraaskedforthenamesoftheclassmembersandthatsheprovidedthemtohim.

Duringcross-examination,sheconcededthatin2012shewasstillrequestingsupplementalinformationonlyforthe10restaurants(besidesCoralGables)whichSeasons52identifiedasbeingopenduringtherelevanttimeperiod.OtherthanaddingtheNaplesrestauranttothelist,shedidnotaskSeasons52forinformationonotherrestaurants.Moreover,sheconcededthattheEEOCevaluatedonly19restaurantswhenitissueditsLetterofDetermination(whichmentioned"restaurantsnationwide").

2.DeborahDubinsky

Seasons52'smanagerofemploymentdisputessince2016,DeborahDubinskywasaseniorparalegalintheemploymentgroupfrom2008to2012,whenshebecameassociatemanagerofemploymentdisputes.ShetestifiedthatthedaybeforethehearingwasthefirsttimesheeversawtheAugust31,2011expansionletter.SheexplainedthatshereviewedSeasons52'sfileanddatabasebuttheletterwasnotthere.Inaddition,shesaidthatInvestigatorGonzaleznevermentionedthelettertoherduringtheircommunicationsintheEEOC'sinvestigation.

AccordingtoDubinsky'stestimony,StoeweaskedhertodraftaresponsetotheEEOC'sSeptember1,2011letter.Shecompliedwiththatrequestandsaidthatherunderstandingwasthat10Seasons52restaurantswereatissue.Shesigned"for"Stoewe(thenknownasDawnRodda)inSeasons52'sSeptember30,2011responsetotheSeptember1,2011letter.Inaddition,Stoeweaskedhertocollectapplicationsforthe10restaurantslistedinInvestigatorGonzalez'sNovember2,2011emailtoStoewe.ThatlistdidnotincludetheCoralGablesrestaurant,butitdidincludeNaples(becausethatrestaurantopenedshortlyafter).

DubinskysaidthatatnotimedidsheinterpretanycommunicationfromtheEEOCtoindicatethatthescopeofitsinvestigationextendedbeyondthe11restaurants(theoriginaloneinCoralGablesandtheadditional10listedintheemail).ShesaidthatSeasons52neverpushedbackwhentheEEOCaskedforinformationanddocumentsforrestaurantsotherthanCoralGablesbecausetheEEOC"couldhaveobtaineditanywaythroughasubpoena."

DubinskyexplainedthatallrestaurantsrespondedtotherequestforinformationandthatshekepttheoriginalapplicationssentinfromtherestaurantsintheSeasons52employmentlawoffice.

ConcerningherJanuary10,2012letter,inwhichshementionsallegationsabouta"nationwidehiringpolicy,"Dubinskysaid"nationwide"meantonly"scatteredacrossthecountry."Shealsosaidthatshedidnotknowifmorethan10Seasons52restaurantswereopenacrossthecountry,andshedeniedthatheruseoftheword"nationwide"meantallrestaurantsinthecountry.Infact,shesaidthattheEEOC'sallegationabouthiringpolicywasmerelyforthe"Scornavacca"case(whichconcernsCoralGables).

DubinskysaidthatshelistenedtoallthetelephoneinterviewswhichtheEEOCconductedwithmanagers,andthensheexplainedthatInvestigatorGonzalezneveraskedthemanagersquestionsconcerningrestaurantsotherthanthe10onthelist.

14of24

ShealsoexplainedthatshewasnotinvolvedinrespondingtodiscoveryrequestsaftertheEEOCfiledthislawsuit,playednoroleindecidingwhethertoissuealitigationhold,anddoesnotsendoutlitigationholds.

Dubinskysaidthatsheenjoyeda"prettygood"workingrelationshipwithInvestigatorGonzalez,withwhomshespokeapproximately50times.ShesaidthatInvestigatorGonzaleznevertoldherthattheEEOCwasinvestigatingSeasons52foranylocationotherthanthoseonthelist,nevermentionedthattheinvestigationwasonbehalfofaclass,andneverexplainedthattheinvestigationcoveredanythingotherthanthetwochargesfiledinconnectionwiththeCoralGablesrestaurant.ShesummarizedherdirecttestimonybysayingthatshemadeagoodfaithefforttopreservedocumentsandESIandneverdestroyedanyresponsivematerial.Oncross-examination,sheconcededthatshedidknowthattheEEOC'sinvestigationincludedrestaurantsotherthanCoralGables.

D.Post-HearingDevelopments

Afterthefollow-upevidentiaryhearing,andinresponsetoaCourt-issueddirective[ECFNo.314],Seasons52submittedanoticeconfirmingthatitdidnotproduceindiscoverynineexhibitswhichtheEEOCmentionedatthefollow-upevidentiaryhearing.[ECFNo.318].Exhibit135isaMarch23,2011emailfromDubinskytoInvestigatorGonzalez,forwardingacopyofarosterofemployeeshiredsincetheopeningoftheCoralGablesrestaurant.[ECFNo.316-22].Exhibit136isanAugust3,2011emailfromDubinskytoInvestigatorGonzalez,forwardingseveraljobdescriptions.[ECFNo.316-24].TheEEOCdidnotprovidetheCourtwithcopiesoftheotherexhibitsatthehearing,althoughitdidfilethemlater.[ECFNo.316-25-31].ThetwodocumentsreferencedabovewereencompassedbyanEEOCrequestforproductionofdocuments,andtheEEOCrepresentedthattheothersevendocumentswerealsocoveredbythesamedocumentrequest.

II.ApplicableLegalPrinciplesandAnalysis

A.JurisdictionalAuthority

Magistratejudgesmayissueordersonany"pretrialmatternotdispositiveofaparty'sclaimordefense[.]"Fed.R.Civ.P.72(a).Suchanordermaynotbesetasideunlessit"isclearlyerroneousoriscontrarytolaw."Id.

Thus,magistratejudgeshavejurisdictiontoentersanctionsordersfordiscoveryfailureswhichdonotstrikeclaims,completelyprecludedefenses,orgeneratelitigation-endingconsequences.PracticeBeforeFederalMagistrates,§16.06A(MathewBender2010)("discoverysanctionsaregenerallyviewedasnon-dispositivematterscommittedtothediscretionofthemagistrateunlessaparty'sentireclaimisbeingdismissed").

Thecriticalfactorusedtodeterminewhetheramagistratejudgemayenteranorderonarequesteddiscoverysanctioniswhatsanctionthemagistratejudgeactuallyimposes,ratherthantheonerequestedbythepartyseekingsanctions.Gomezv.MartinMariettaCorp.,50F.3d1511,1519-20(10thCir.1995)(rejectingargumentthatmagistratejudgeruledondispositivemotionbecauselitigantsoughtentryofadefaultjudgmentandexplainingthat"[e]venthoughamovantrequestsasanctionthatwouldbedispositive,ifthemagistratejudgedoesnotimposeadispositivesanction,"thentheorderistreatedasnotdispositiveunderRule72(a));Wright,Miller&Marcus,FederalPracticeandProcedure:Civil2d§3068.2,at342-44(West1997).

FederalmagistratejudgesinthisCircuit[14]frequentlyenterorders(asopposedtoreportsandrecommendations)incaseswherepartiesseeksanctions,includingdefaultjudgmentsordismissals,forspoliation.See,e.g.,Calixtov.WatsonBowmanAcmeCorp.,No.07-60077-CIV,2009WL3823390(S.D.Fla.Nov.16,2009)(Rosenbaum,J.);AtlanticSeaCo.,S.A.,v.AnaisWorldwideShipping,Inc.,No.08-23079-CIV,2010WL2346665(S.D.Fla.June9,2010)(Brown,J.);ManagedCareSolutions,Inc.v.EssentHealthcare,Inc.,736F.Supp.2d1317(S.D.Fla.2010)(O'Sullivan,J.) .Indeed,federalmagistratejudgesinFloridahaveenteredordersimposingadverseinferencesandattorney'sfeesassanctionsinspoliationscenarios.OptowaveCo.,Ltd.v.Nikitin,No.6:05-cv-1083-Orl-22DAB,2006WL3231422(M.D.Fla.Nov.7,2006)(Baker,J.)(imposingadverseinferencejuryinstructionbasedonintentionalfailuretoproducehighlyrelevantemails);PreferredCarePartnersHoldingCorp.v.Humana,Inc.,No.08-20424-CIV,2009WL982460,at*8(S.D.Fla.Apr.9,2009)(Simonton,J.)(awardingcostsandfeesfor"grosslynegligentdiscoveryconduct"leadingtothedestructionofemailswhenbadjudgment,butnotbadfaith,wasresponsiblefortheerrors).

BecauseanadverseinferenceinstructiondoesnotstrikeaclaimordefenseandtheEEOCisnotseekingharshertypesofrelief(suchasanorderstrikingSeasons52'sdefensesorprecludingtestimony),thisOrder(assessingtheviabilityofarequestedadverseinference)concernsanon-dispositiveissuethatcanbedeterminedbyamagistratejudgethroughanorderunderRule72(a)—asopposedtoareportandrecommendations.

15of24

B.Spoliation

Spoliationreferstothedestructionofevidenceorthesignificantandmeaningfulalterationofadocumentorinstrument.GreenLeafNurseryv.E.I.DuPontdeNemours&Co.,341F.3d1292,1308(11thCir.2003).Butitissometimesalsodefinedasthe"intentionaldestruction,mutilation,alterationorconcealmentofevidence,usuallyadocument."Calixto,2009WL3823390,at*13(emphasisadded)(internalcitationomitted);seealsoSe.Mech.Servs,Inc.v.Brody,No.8:08-CV-1151-T-30EAJ,2009WL2242395,at*2(M.D.Fla.July24,2009)("theintentionaldestructionorconcealmentofevidence").

ThecourtsinthisCircuithavenotalwaysbeenconsistentinprovidingadefinitionof"spoliation."Somedefinitionsincludetheword"intentional,"whileothersdonot.[15]BecausetheEleventhCircuit'sdecisionsinGreenLeafNurseryandOilEquipmentdidnotinclude"intentional"initsdefinitionofthedestructionofevidencerequirementforspoliation,theCourtwillnotincludethatrequirement.341F.3dat1308 .[16]

Inmeetingtherequirementtodemonstratethatthespoliatedevidencewascrucialtothemovant'sabilitytoproveitsprimafaciecaseordefense,itisnotenoughthatthespoliatedevidencewouldhavebeenrelevanttoaclaimordefense.ManagedCareSolutions,736F.Supp.2dat1327-28 (findingthattheallegedlyspoliatedevidencewasnotcrucialtotheplaintiff'sclaimsbecauseitcouldstillproveitscasethroughotherevidencealreadyobtainedelsewhere);seealsoFloeterv.CityofOrlando,No.6:05-cv-400-Orl-22KRS,2007WL486633,at*6(M.D.Fla.Feb.9,2007)(findingthatalthoughmissingemailswererelevanttotheplaintiff'scase,theywerenotcriticalandwouldhavebeencumulative).

Partiescanasktrialcourtstopermitthemtointroduceintoevidenceattrialthecircumstancessurroundingtheiropposition'sfailuretoretainandproduceevidence,includingemails,evenwhenthetrialcourtrejectstherequestforanadverseinferencejuryinstruction.ManagedCareSolutions,736F.Supp.2dat1334 .

Acourthasbroaddiscretiontoimposesanctionsforlitigationmisconductbasedonitsinherentpowertomanageitsownaffairs.Afindingofbadfaith,however,isrequiredtoimposesanctionsbaseduponthecourt'sinherentpower.InreMroz,65F.3d1567,1575(11thCir.1995).

Thedistrictcourthasbroaddiscretiontocontroldiscovery,includingtheabilitytoimposesanctionsonuncooperativelitigants.Phippsv.Blakeney,8F.3d788,790(11thCir.1993).

InthisCircuit,sanctionsforspoliationofevidencemayinclude"(1)dismissalofthecase[ordefaultjudgmentagainstthedefendant];(2)exclusionofexperttestimony;or(3)ajuryinstructiononspoliationwhichraisesapresumptionagainstthespoliator."Fluryv.DaimlerChryslerCorp.,427F.3d939,945(11thCir.2005) ;seealsoWalterv.CarnivalCorp.,No.09-20962-CIV,2010WL2927962,at*2(S.D.Fla.July23,2010) .

Inthiscase,theEEOCurgesthethirdtypeofsanction—impositionofanadverseinference.Buttherearedifferenttypesofadverseinferences,rangingindifferingandever-increasinglevelsofharshness.Onetyperesultsinajurybeinginstructedthatcertainfactsaredeemedadmittedandmustbeacceptedastrue.Anothertyperesultsintheimpositionofamandatory,albeitrebuttable,presumption.Athirdtypepermitsajurytopresumethatthelostevidenceisrelevantandfavorabletotheinnocentparty.Withthisthirdtypeofadverseinference,thejuryalsoconsidersthespoliatingparty'srebuttalevidenceandthendecideswhethertodrawanadverseinference.

StressingthatSeasons52'sdestructionofdocumentsviolatesgenerallyapplicableEEOCregulationsandthatSeasons52alsofailedtotimelyimplementanadequatelitigationhold,theEEOCalsonotesthatSeasons52shreddedapplicationdataafteritknewthattheEEOCexpandeditsinvestigationtothenationallevel.TheEEOCalsoarguesthatSeasons52'spositionthatithas"noknowledge"ofdocumentsbeinglostordestroyedisnotcredible.Therefore,theEEOCseeksseveralbadfaith-basedpermissibleinferencesandtheexclusionofcertaindataanalysisandtheories.

Inaddition,theEEOCcontendsthattheCourtmayprecludeSeasons52frommakingcertainargumentsattrialandatsummaryjudgment,provideajuryinstructiononaless-harshadverseinferenceaboutspoliation,andawardattorney'sfeesandcostsiftheCourtfindsthatSeasons52failedtopreservedataithadadutytopreservebutfailedtodosoinbadfaith.

Asthepartyseekingspoliationsanctions,theEEOChastheburdenofproof."[T]hepartyseeking[spoliation]sanctionsmustprove...first,thatthemissingevidenceexistedatonetime;second,thattheallegedspoliatorhadadutytopreservetheevidence;andthird,thattheevidencewascrucialtothemovantbeingabletoproveitsprimafaciecaseordefense."Walter,2010WL2927962,at*2(citingFloeter,2007WL486633,at*5)(emphasisadded);seealsoManagedCareSolutions,736F.Supp.2dat1322 .

C.BadFaithRequirement

16of24

InthisCircuit,"[a]party'sfailuretopreserveevidence"risestothelevelofsanctionablespoliation"onlywheretheabsenceofthatevidenceispredicatedonbadfaith,"suchaswhereapartypurposely"tamper[s]withtheevidence."Bashirv.Amtrak,119F.3d929,931(11thCir.1997) ;seealsoPenaltyKickMgmt.Ltd.v.CocaColaCo.,318F.3d1284,1294(11thCir.2003)(holdingnoadverseinferencefrommissinglabelbecausetherewasnoindicationofbadfaith).

AlthoughtheEleventhCircuitindicatedinFlurythatbadfaithisonlyafactortoconsiderunderGeorgiaspoliationlaw,427F.3dat945, FlurydoesnotstandforthepropositionthatbadfaithisnotrequiredinthisCircuitforanadverseinferencejuryinstructionbasedonspoliationofevidence.Severalreasonssupportthisconclusion.

First,FluryconstruedGeorgiaspoliationlaw(notfederalorFloridaspoliationlaw).Second,Flurywas"apaneldecisionandassuchdidnotoverrulethepriorpaneldecisioninBashir,requiringashowingofbadfaith."ManagedCareSolutions,736F.Supp.2dat1328,n.16 (notingthatonlytheSupremeCourtoranenbancdecisionfromtheEleventhCircuitcanjudiciallyoverruleapriorpaneldecision).Third,inseveralcasesfollowingthe2005Flurydecision,theEleventhCircuitspecificallyandunequivocallyheldthatbadfaithisrequiredforanadverseinferenceinstructionasasanctionforspoliation.SeeMannv.TaserInt'l,Inc.,588F.3d1291,1310(11thCir.2009)(notingthatashowingofmaliceisnotrequiredtofindbadfaithbutemphasizingthatanadverseinferencecanbe"drawnfromaparty'sfailuretopreserveevidenceonlywhentheabsenceofthatevidenceispredicatedonbadfaith")(internalquotationomitted);Coxv.TargetCorp,.351F.App'x381,383(11thCir.2009)(holdingthat"ajuryinstructiononspoliationofevidenceisrequiredonly"whenbadfaithisresponsiblefortheabsenceoftheevidence);BPProds.N.Am.,Inc.v.Se.EnergyGrp.,Inc.,282Fed.App'x776,780n.3(11thCir.2008)(holdingthatanadverseinferencepresumptionwasappropriatewherethedistrictcourtimplicitlydeterminedthatthedefendant'sactionswerepredicatedonbadfaith).

Additionally,initsrelativelyrecentOilEquipmentdecision,theEleventhCircuitcitedFluryfortherulethatadismissalsanctionforspoliation"shouldonlybeexercisedwherethereisashowingofbadfaithandwherelessersanctionswillnotsuffice."OilEquip.Co.,661F.App'xat653 (citingFlury,427F.3dat944 ).TheOilEquipmentdecisionwentontoexplain:

Withregardtothespoliator'sculpability,thiscircuitdoesnotrequireashowingofmaliceinordertofindbadfaith,butwedorequiresomethingmorethanmerenegligence.Generally,badfaithmaybefoundwheretheplaintiff'sactionsareresponsibleforthespoliationofevidenceandtheplaintifffullyappreciatedthesignificanceoftheevidencetotheanticipatedlitigation.

Id.(internalcitationsandquotationsomitted).

Phraseddifferently,merenegligenceinlosingordestroyingrecordsorevidenceisinsufficienttojustifyanadverseinferenceinstructionforspoliation.Bashir,119F.3dat931 .TheEleventhCircuit'sruleprecludinganadverseinferenceinthefaceofsimplenegligenceisthat"itdoesnotsustainaninferenceofconsciousnessofaweakcase."Id.(internalquotationomitted);seealsoSlatteryv.PrecisionResponseCorp.167F.App'x139,141(11thCir.2006).

GiventhisCircuit'srequirementthatanadverseinferenceflowingfromspoliationrequiresthepresenceofbadfaith,evengrosslynegligentdiscoveryconductdoesnotjustifythattypeofjuryinstruction.PreferredCarePartnersHoldingCorp.,2009WL982460at*7 (decliningtoorderadverseinferenceeventhoughparty'sperformanceinfulfillingdiscoveryobligationswas"clearlyegregious"andeventhoughtheparty'sdiscoveryfailings"resultedfromthegrosslynegligentoversightsofcounsel").

BecausethisCircuit,unlikesomeothers,requiresbadfaithbeforepermittinganadverseinferencejuryinstructionwhenthereisspoliationofevidence,courtsdenytherequestedinstructionwhennobadfaithisshown.Slattery,167F.App'xat141 (holdingthatemployer'sfailuretoproducedocumentsdidnotjustifyanadverseinferencebecauseplaintiffhaddemonstrated"noevidence[ofwithholding]ortamperingwithanyofthedocumentsinbadfaith");seealsoPenaltyKickMgmt.,318F.3dat1293-94 (noevidenceofbadfaithinlosinglabelatissueinlawsuitallegingimproperdisclosureoftradesecrets).

Infact,districtcourtsinourCircuitregularlydenyadverseinferencerequestsevenwhenthereisanindisputabledestructionofevidence.Socasv.Nw.Mut.LifeIns.Co.,No.07-20336,2010WL3894142(S.D.Fla.Sept.30,2010)(denyingmotiontodismissandforadverseinferencejuryinstructionwhendoctornegligentlyfailedtosuspendherordinarypolicyofpurginginactivepatientfilesafterlearningtheinformationinthosefileswasrelevanttoherdisabilityclaim);Walter,2010WL2927962(missingbrokendeckchairinlawsuitforinjuriessustainedwhenplaintiff'sdeckchaircollapsedwhilehewasacruiseshippassenger);AtlanticSea

17of24

Co.,2010WL2346665(failuretopreservespotlightandelectricalwiring);Calixto,2009WL3823390(missingemails);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Barlow,576F.Supp.2d1375,1381(S.D.Fla.2008) (lossofPVCmarkerusedtoidentifythelocationofaship'sgroundinginalawsuitbroughtbythegovernmentfordamagetounderwatersanctuaryresourceswhendefendant'sboatranaground).

Partiescanestablishtherequisitebadfaiththrougheitherdirectorcircumstantialevidence.Calixto,2009WL3823390,at*16.Inordertodemonstratethatapartydestroyedevidenceinbadfaiththroughcircumstantialevidence,themovantmustestablishallofthefollowingfourfactors:(1)evidenceonceexistedthatcouldfairlybesupposedtohavebeenmaterialtotheproofordefenseofaclaimatissueinthecase;(2)thespoliatingpartyengagedinanaffirmativeactcausingtheevidencetobelost;(3)thespoliatingpartydidsowhileitkneworshouldhaveknownofitsdutytopreservetheevidence;[17]and(4)theaffirmativeactcausingthelosscannotbecrediblyexplainedasnotinvolvingbadfaithbythereasonprofferedbythespoliator.Calixto,2009WL3823390,at*16(emphasisadded);seealsoManagedCareSols.,736F.Supp.2dat1331-32(adoptingfour-factortestforcircumstantialevidenceofbadfaith).

Whenaparty'sactionsleadtothedestructionofevidencebutwerenotdoneinbadfaith,thensanctionsareinappropriate—butthisresult"isnotintendedtopreclude[theprejudicedparty]fromintroducingintoevidencethefactsconcerningthefailuretopreserverelevant[evidence]."Socas,2010WL3894142,at*9.Thus,anorderdenyingspoliationsanctionswouldnotbethedeathknellfortheEEOC'seffortstopresentSeasons52'sactions(orinactions)toajury.

TheEleventhCircuithasnotdecidedtheappropriateevidentiarystandardtousewhentherequestedsanctionsarebasedupontheCourt'sinherentpowers.Nevertheless,theUndersignedfindspersuasiveadecisionbyU.S.MagistrateJudgeAndreaSimontoninInreBricanAmericaLLCEquipmentLeaseLitigation,977F.Supp.2d1287(S.D.Fla.2013) .

InBrican,thecourtadoptedtwodifferentevidentiaryburdens,dependingonthenatureofthesanctionimposed.For"issue-related"sanctions—"thosethatarefundamentallyremedialratherthanpunitiveanddonotprecludeatrialonthemerits"—theproofmustbebyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Id.at1293n.6(quotingComptonv.AlphaKappaAlphaSorority,Inc.,938F.Supp.2d103,104-05(D.D.C.2013) ).Incontrast,for"fundamentallypenal"sanctions—suchas"dismissalsanddefaultjudgments,aswellascontemptorders,awardsofattorneys'fees,andtheimpositionoffines"—theclearandconvincingstandardisused.Id.(quotingCompton,938F.Supp.2dat104-05).JudgeSimontonusedthepreponderanceoftheevidencestandardforthewitness-tamperingallegationsinsofarastheplaintiffssoughtnon-dispositivesanctionsandappliedthemore-exactingclearandconvincingstandardtotherequestfordispositivesanctions.

Inthiscase,theEEOChasrequestedmyriadtypesofissue-relatedsanctions,suchasadverseinferencesandorderspermittingorexcludingthepartiesfromintroducingcertaintypesofevidence.Theyrequireproofbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.NoneoftherelieftheEEOCrequestsisapenalty-typeofsanction,soitdoesnotneedtoestablishanythingconcerningitssanctionsmotionbythemore-strictclearandconvincingstandard.SeeTarasewiczv.RoyalCaribbeanCruisesLtd.,No.14-CIV-60885,2016WL3944176,at*4(S.D.Fla.Feb.9,2016),reportandrecommendationadopted,2016WL3944178(S.D.Fla.Mar.17,2016)(followingBrican'sstandardofproofanalysis);Fed.DepositIns.Corp.v.Smith,No.13-14151-CIV,2014WL12206380,at*2(S.D.Fla.Mar.12,2014)(same).

D.PotentialConsequencesifNoBadFaithisEstablished

MostofthesanctionstheEEOCrequestsareadverseinferences.[ECFNo.246,pp.20-21,24].Astopaperapplicationsandinterviewbooklets,theEEOCrequestsaninferencethatapplicationsatfourlocations"wouldhaveshownmoresignificantunder-hiringofolderapplicantsthanCensusproxiesandelectronicdata;"thatapplicationsatfivelocations"wouldhaveprovidedanecdotalagediscriminationtestimony;"andthatinterviewbooklets"couldhavecontemporaneouslyrecordedtheinterviewer'sobservations,agebiasandotherindiciaofwhattookplaceattheinterviews,whichcouldbeusedtorebuttheassertionthatolderapplicantsperformedpoorlyatinterviewsascomparedwithyoungerapplicants[.]"[ECFNo.246,pp.20-21].

Astoemails,theEEOCasks"toarguewhatthelostemailslikelywouldhavecontained;"seeksaninferencethatpreservationofemails"wouldreflectadditionalemailsexpressingapreferenceforyoungerapplicants;"andrequestsanorderto"notallow[Seasons52]tointroduceevidenceaboutthecontentoflostemails"(i.e.,topreventitfromrebuttingtheEEOC'sargumentsaboutwhatemailsmighthaveshown).[ECFNo.246,p.24].

Eachoftheserequestsseeksasanctionintheformofapresumptionastowhatunavailabledocumentswouldhaveshown.Thesetypesofsanctionsareadverseinferencesand,therefore,requireapredicateshowing(byapreponderanceoftheevidence)ofbadfaith.

18of24

Inpriordecisions(andasnotedabove),theCourthascategorizedthe"differenttypesofadverseinferences,"whichincludethetypesofsanctionsthattheEEOChasrequestedinthiscase.CommercialLongTradingCorp.v.ScottsdaleIns.Co.,No.12-22787-CIV,2013WL1100063,at*3(S.D.Fla.Mar.15,2013);PointBlankSols.,Inc.v.ToyoboAm.,Inc.,No.09-61166-CIV,2011WL1456029,at*9(S.D.Fla.Apr.5,2011) ."Theharshesttype"isajuryinstruction"thatcertainfactsaredeemedadmittedandmustbeacceptedastrue."Commercial,2013WL1100063,at*3.Inthemiddleis"impositionofamandatory,albeitrebuttable,presumption."Id.Finally,the"least-harshtype"isonethat"permitsajurytopresumethatthelostevidenceisrelevantandfavorabletotheinnocentparty,"butwhere"thejuryalsoconsidersthespoliatingparty'srebuttalevidenceandthendecideswhethertodrawanadverseinference."Id.

ButnoneoftheseadverseinferencesrequestedbytheEEOCispermittedwithoutafindingofbadfaith.SeeMann,588F.3dat1310 ("IntheEleventhCircuit,`anadverseinferenceisdrawnfromaparty'sfailuretopreserveevidenceonlywhentheabsenceofthatevidenceispredicatedonbadfaith.'")(quotingBashir,119F.3dat931);seealsoPointBlankSols.,2011WL1456029,at*1(refusingtoimposeanadverseinference"unlessthereisevidenceofbadfaith").

TheCourt,however,muststillconsidertwootherpotentialbroadcategoriesofconsequences(otherthananadverseinference)ifbadfaithisnotestablished:(1)excludingorlimitingtestimonyand(2)permittingthejurytoconsiderevidenceofspoliation.

Moreover,theseconsequencesarenotnecessarilytiedtotheCourt'sinherentpowertoimposespoliationsanctions;theycanbeimposedasdiscoverysanctionswithoutafindingofbadfaith.SeeEEOCv.TroyStateUniv.,693F.2d1353,1358(11thCir.1982)(reversingdismissaloftheEEOC'slawsuitwheretheEEOC'sfailuretocomplywithCourtdiscoveryorderswasnotinbadfaith,andnotingthatthedistrictcourtshouldhaveconsideredotheravailablesanctions,suchaslimitingtheEEOC'sproductionofevidence);BankAtlanticv.BlytheEastmanPaineWebber,Inc.,12F.3d1045,1049(11thCir.1994)(holdingthatunderRule37,"[a]courtmayimposelessersanctionswithoutashowingofwillfulnessorbadfaithonthepartofthedisobedientparty.").

Ontheotherhand,thesubsectionoftheapplicableruleofcivilprocedureconcerningthefailuretopreserveESIpermitsharsh-typesanctionslikeanadverseinference"onlyuponfindingthatthepartyactedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation'suseinthelitigation."Fed.R.Civ.P.37(e)(2)(emphasisadded).

Theadvisorycommitteenotestothe2015amendmenttoRule37(whichaddedthesectionforsanctionsarisingfromfailurestopreserveESI)explainsthatthe"veryseveremeasures"mentionedinsubsection(e)(2)rejectscaseswhich"authorizethegivingofadverse-inferenceinstructionsonafindingofnegligenceorgrossnegligence."Fed.R.Civ.P.37(advisorycommitteenotes).Thenotesprovideapolicytheoryforitsposition:negligentorevengrosslynegligentbehavior"doesnotlogicallysupport"the"inference"thatthemissingordestroyedevidence"wasunfavorabletothepartyresponsibleforlossordestructionoftheevidence."Id.

Infact,thenotesprovideadditionalclarificationfortheprovisionrequiringintent:"Informationlostthroughnegligencemayhavebeenfavorabletoeitherparty,includingthepartythatlostit,andinferringthatitwasunfavorabletothatpartymaytipthebalanceattrialinwaysthelostinformationneverwouldhave."Id.(emphasisadded);see,e.g.,LivingColorEnterprises,Inc.v.NewEraAquaculture,Ltd.,No.14-CV-62216,2016WL1105297,at*6n.6(S.D.Fla.Mar.22,2016)(decliningtoimposeRule37(e)(2)sanctionsbecausetherewasnoevidencethatthedefendantintentionallydeletedtextmessagesinordertodeprivetheplaintiffoftheiruseinthelawsuit,andobservingthat"intenttodeprive"standard"mayverywellbeharmoniouswiththe`badfaith'standard").

Asfurtherexplainedbytheadvisorycommitteenotes:

Subdivision(e)(2)doesnotincludearequirementthatthecourtfindprejudicetothepartydeprivedoftheinformation.Thisisbecausethefindingofintentrequiredbythesubdivisioncansupportnotonlyaninferencethatthelostinformationwasunfavorabletothepartythatintentionallydestroyedit,butalsoaninferencethattheopposingpartywasprejudicedbythelossofinformationthatwouldhavefavoreditsposition.Subdivision(e)(2)doesnotrequireanyfurtherfindingofprejudice.

Fed.R.Civ.P.37(advisorycommitteenotes);seeE.E.O.C.v.JacksonvilleShipyards,Inc.,690F.Supp.995,998-99(M.D.Fla.1988)(decliningtoimposeextremesanctionsunderRule37butfindingthat"lessersanctionsmayeffectivelyremedytheprejudicesufferedbyEEOC,"suchas"limit[ing]defendant'sproductionofevidenceinoppositiontoEEOC'spresentation"or"equitablyadjust[ing]thelevelofproofnecessarytodemonstratediscrimination[.]").

19of24

SettingasideRule37'sapplicabilitytoESIandfocusingagainontheEEOC'scontentionthatSeasons52destroyedpaperapplicationsandwritteninterviewguidelinesandbooklets,courtsinthisjurisdictionhaveimposedlessersanctionsthandismissaloradverseinferencesabsentafindingofbadfaith.SeeGraffv.BajaMarineCorp.,310Fed.Appx.298,302(11thCir.Feb.2,2009)(upholdingtheexclusionofexperttestimonybecause,"[e]veniftheplaintiffsdidnotactwithmalicewhentheyspoliatedevidence,theplaintiffswerethemoreculpablepartyandcausedthemanufacturerssubstantialprejudice.");[18]Gessv.UnitedStates,952F.Supp.1529,1560n.50(M.D.Ala.1996)(notingthat"[i]tdoesnotappearinitiallythatthedefendant'sconductrisestothelevelofculpableconductrequiredintheEleventhCircuittowarrantanentryofdefaultjudgment,"butthat"theplaintiffsmaybeentitledtosomeformofsanctionsforthedefendant'sdestructionofcriticalevidence.").

PermittingtheEEOCtointroduceevidenceofspoliationattrial(andpermittingSeasons52tointroduceevidenceandmakeargumentstoexplainthelossofevidencewithoutobtaininganadverseinferenceorapermissibleadverseinference)isthemildestsanctionsoughtbytheEEOC,anditispermittedwithoutabadfaithfinding.SeeU.S.E.E.O.C.v.SuntrustBank,No.8:12-CV-1325-T-33,2014WL1364982,at*11(M.D.Fla.Apr.7,2014)(allowingtheEEOCtointroduceevidenceattrialofdefendant'spoliciesregardingpreservationofitssurveillancevideosanditsfailuretopreservesurveillancevideoevidence);Floeter,2007WL486633,at*7("Courtshavefoundthatlossofevidencemayberelevantandadmissibleforthejury'sconsideration,andthatadverseinferencesarisingfromsuchdestructioncanbearguedbycounselinclosing.");[19]Socasv.TheNw.Mut.LifeIns.Co.,No.07-20336-CIV,2010WL3894142,at*9(S.D.Fla.Sept.30,2010) (denyingthedefendant'srequestfordismissaloradverseinferencebutnotingthat"thisrulingisnotintendedtopreclude[thedefendant]fromintroducingintoevidencethefactsconcerningthisfailuretopreserverelevantdocuments.");ManagedCareSols.,736F.Supp.2dat1334 (denyingsanctionsmotionbutexplainingthat"thisrulingdoesnotforeclosethepossibilitythattheplaintiffwillbeabletointroduceevidenceofthedefendant'sfailuretoretainrelevantdocumentsattrial.").

Rule37(e)alsopermitsacourttoimposemeasuresotherthanthesevereoneslistedin(e)(2)withoutfindingthatthepartyresponsibleforthefailuretopreservehadtherequisiteintent.Thus,thenotesexplainthat"subdivision(e)(2)wouldnotprohibitacourtfromallowingthepartiestopresentevidencetothejuryconcerningthelossandlikelyrelevanceofinformationandinstructingthejurythatitmayconsiderthatevidence,alongwithalltheotherevidenceinthecase,inmakingitsdecision."Fed.R.Civ.P.37(advisorycommitteenotes).Acourtcoulddothisifthemeasurewas"nogreaterthannecessarytocureprejudice."Id.Inordertousethismeasure,however,acourtorjurywouldneedtoalsofindthepresenceofthreefactors:(1)theESIwaslost"becauseapartyfailedtotakereasonablestepstopreserveit,"(2)thelostESI"cannotberestoredorreplacedthroughadditionaldiscovery,"and(3)thereis"prejudice"totheparty"fromlossoftheinformation."Fed.R.Civ.P.37(e)(1).

III.FindingsandConclusions

TheUndersignedmakesthefollowingfindings,whichcreatethefoundationforthesubstantiveruling:

1.TheEEOChasnotestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatSeasons52receivedtheso-calledAugust31,2011expansionletter.IhavenodoubtthatInvestigatorGonzalezactuallybelievesthattheletterwassentandthatSeasons52receivedit.Buttherearetoomanyvagueandunusualcircumstancessurroundingthelettertosupportthattheory.

First,Seasons52'switnessesunequivocallytestifiedthattheyneverreceiveditandthattheirrecordsanddatabasesdonotcontainit.Giventhattheyconcedereceiptofotherletters,thisomissionissignificant.Second,theletterwasnotsentbytelefax,overnightmail,certifiedmail/returnreceiptrequested,orothermethodwhichwouldconfirmreceiptbySeasons52.Third,althoughInvestigatorGonzalezkeepsalogofsignificantdevelopments,thereisnoAugust31,2011entryforpreparationoftheexpansionletter.Fourth,theentrywhichdoesrefertothelettercanbeinterpretedtoreferonlytotheSeptember1,2011letter,asopposedtotwoletters(onedatedAugust31,2011).Fifth,thereferencetoanexpansionletterinthelogdoesnotcontainadate.Sixth,althoughtheexpansionletterwasdatedAugust31,InvestigatorGonzalezsaysthatitwasactuallymailedthefollowingday—butshedoesnotrecallifsheputbothlettersinoneenvelope.Seventh,thezipcodeontheAugust31,2011letterwasincorrect.AlthoughtheSeptember1,2011letterwasinfactreceivedbySeasons52eventhoughit,too,containedanincorrectzipcode,itisentirelyfeasiblethatoneletterarrivedandoneletterwasneverdelivered(iftwoenvelopeswereused).

2.Seasons52knewbySeptember2011thattheEEOC'sinvestigationfocusedon10restaurants,notmerelytheCoralGablesrestaurant.TheSeptember1,2011lettermadeexplicitreferencetoan"expansion"ofthecase,andSeasons52wasregularlyforwardinginformationabout10restaurantsandthenaddedanotherrestaurant(i.e.,Naples)totheongoingproduction.Italsoarrangedformanagersatrestaurantsotherthan

20of24

CoralGablestobeinterviewed.

3.Seasons52wasthereforeunderadutytopreserverelevantmaterialsforthose11restaurants.ThatdutybeganinSeptember2011forthe10restaurantsonthelistandbeganfortheNaplesrestaurantonthefirstdaythatSeasons52providedinformationaboutthatlocation.

4.GiventhattheEEOC'sSeptember1,2011lettermentionedanexpansionofthecase,theUndersigneddeemsSeasons52'slackoflogicalfollow-throughtobeunacceptable.Seasons52'sattorneysshouldhaveaskedInvestigatorGonzalezthelogicalfollow-upquestion:howisthecaseexpanding?Thenoticethatthecasehadexpandedwasintheveryfirstsentenceoftheletter,soitisdifficulttounderstandhoworwhySeasons52didnotrealizethatsomethingsubstantivelysignificanthadhappenedandthattheyneededtoquicklydeterminewhatitwasandwhatneededtobedone.

5.Seasons52'spositionthatitbelievedtheEEOC'sinvestigationfocusedonlyononerestaurantisperhapstheoreticallyplausiblebutIdonotfinditlogicalorpersuasive.Ajury,however,couldconceivablyfinditconvincing(orconvincingenough).

6.Seasons52'sowndocumentretentionpolicyrequiredittopreservematerialsfortheEEOC'sinvestigation—whichencompassed11restaurants.Seasons52shouldhaveimplementedlitigationholdsforallrestaurants,notmerelytheCoralGablesone.AlthoughSeasons52saysthatitpreservedmaterialsanyway,theEEOChasestablishedthatmaterialsconcerningthreeoftheelevenrestaurantsinvolvedintheinvestigationwerenotproduced.

7.TheapplicableEEOCregulationsrequiredSeasons52topreserverecords—butonlyfortheonerestaurantatissueinthetwoactualcharges.Thenoticeofchargelistsrecord-keepingdutiesuntildispositionof"thecharge"—andtheonlychargesherearethetwofiledbytwoapplicantstotheCoralGablesrestaurant.

8.ButtheUndersignedalsorejectstheEEOC'spositionthatSeasons52knewsinceSeptember2011thattheinvestigationwasnationalandcoveredallrestaurantsatissueinthelawsuit.Tothecontrary,virtuallyallcommunicationsbetweenSeasons52andtheEEOCconcernedthe11restaurants.Moreover,thedefinitionoftherelevanttimeperiodprovidedintheSeptember1,2011letterisatoddswiththeviewthatall35Seasons52restaurantswerepartoftheinvestigation.Therefore,thedutytopreservearoseonlyinconnectionwith11restaurants.

9.Despitehisreviewofless-than-optimaldata,theEEOC'sexpertwitnesswasstillabletoreachconclusionsevenwithoutcertainpaperapplicationsandinterviewbooklets.Significantly,althoughhevoicedapreferenceforadditionalinformation,theEEOC'sexpertultimatelyexplainedthathisopinionsarestillvalid.

10.TheUndersigneddoesnotviewDubinsky'sreferencetoa"nationwidehiringpolicy"tomeanthatSeasons52infactunderstoodthattheEEOC'sinvestigationwas"national"inthefullsenseoftheword.Instead,itislogicallyinterpretedtomeanthatSeasons52knewthattheinvestigationconcerned11restaurantsthathappenedtobelocatedin11citiesaroundthecountry.Totheextentthosecitiesareinmyriadlocationsinthecountry,thenSeasons52knewtheinvestigationcoveredrestaurantsin11specificrestaurantsthroughoutthenation.Thatdoesnot,however,equatetoabeliefthatallSeasons52restaurants"acrossthenation"werepartoftheinvestigationorthattheinvestigationwas"national."

Additionalfindingsandconclusionsareexplainedbelow,underappropriatesub-topics.

A.PrejudiceandCurabilityofPrejudice

11.Seasons52'sdestructionofpaperapplicationshascausedsomeprejudicetotheEEOC,whichwillbeseekingtoproveitscasethroughstatisticalandanecdotalevidence.Ontheotherhand,theunavailabilityofthepaperapplicationsdoesnotgeneratehorrificconsequences.TheEEOC'sexpertwasstillabletoreachconclusions.Moreover,theapplicationsthemselvesdonotlistdatesofbirth,sotheirabsenceisnotassignificantasthelossofevidencedirectlyestablishingapplicants'ages.

12.Toanextent,thesamecommentscanbemadeabouttheinterviewbookletsandinterviewguides.Althoughthosematerialsmightconceivablyhavebeenparticularlysignificanthadtheybeencomprehensivelyandroutinelyused,itappearsasthoughSeasons52'smanagersandthoseinvolvedintheinterviewprocessoftendidnotfilloutthosebookletsordidnotfillthemoutcompletely.Moreover,theydonotcontainbirthdateinformation.

13.Foremails,Seasons52tooknostepstopreservethemat34ofthe35locationsatissueinthislawsuituntilafterthelawsuitwasfiled.Asexplainedabove,however,theUndersignedfindsthatSeasons52wasunderapreservationdutyforonly11restaurants,whichmeansthatnolitigationholdwasissuedforanyofthese11restaurantsotherthanCoralGables.Seasons52hasconcededthatthelostemailscannotbe

21of24

restoredorreplacedbecausetheyweredeletedandcannotberecovered.

14.Butitisdifficulttoconclusivelydeterminethatthemissingmaterials—paperapplications,interviewbooklets,interviewguides,andemails—wouldnecessarilyhavehelpedtheEEOCorunderminedSeasons52'sdefense.ItisconceivablethattheinformationcouldhavebeenhelpfultoSeasons52.

15.Moreover,Seasons52certainlyhasalogicalargumentthatthemissingmaterialswerenotcriticalorcrucialtotheEEOC'scase,whichiswhytheUndersignedisnotnowgrantingtheEEOCharsh-typesanctionslikeapermissibleadverseinference.BecausetheEEOC'sexpertwasstillabletocompletehisanalysisandoffervalidopinionsinsupportoftheEEOC'sposition,theEEOChasnotmetoneofthecriticalprerequisitesforapermissibleadverseinference—thatthemissingordestroyedmaterialswerecrucialtoitscase.ManagedCareSols.,736F.Supp.2dat1327-28 (findingthatevidencewasnotcrucialtoplaintiff'sclaimsbecauseitcouldestablishitscasethroughotherevidence);Floeter,2007WL486633,at*6 (findingthatalthoughmissingemailsmayberelevanttotheplaintiff'scase,theywerenotcritical);seealsoSicilianov.TargetCorp.,No.9:14-CV-80459,2015WL11348279,at*4(S.D.Fla.Apr.24,2015)(denyingmotionforsanctionsforspoliationofevidenceconcerningallegedlymissingvideosurveillancefootage,holdingthattheplaintiffdidnotestablishthatthefootageiscrucialtoherabilitytoproveherprimafacienegligencecaseandnotingthat"thereisalternativeevidenceavailable");Acrev.Chambers,No.2:14CV211-CSC,2015WL668054,at*2(M.D.Ala.Feb.17,2015)(denyingtheplaintiff'ssanctionsmotionbasedonspoliationinapolicebrutalitycaseandnotingthatthe"plaintiff'sclaimofsevereprejudiceisunpersuasive"becauseotherwitnessescouldtestifyaboutwhathappened,whichmeansthatthefailuretosecureataserinamannerwhichmaintainedtheinternalclockcanbeoffsetthroughotherevidence);Wilsonv.Wal-MartStores,Inc.,No.5:07CV394-OC-10GRJ,2008WL4642596,at*3(M.D.Fla.Oct.17,2008)(findingthatmissingmemorandumwasnot"critical"totheplaintiff'sabilitytoproveheremploymentdiscriminationcase"becausethereisotherevidencepotentiallyavailableto[thep]laintifftoproveherclaim.").

B.BadFaith

BecausetheUndersignedfindsthatthemissingnon-ESImaterialsarenotcrucialtotheEEOC'scase,thereisnoneedformetonowdeterminewhetherSeasons52actedinbadfaithinconnectionwiththepaperapplicationsandinterviewbooklets.IhavealreadynotedthatSeasons52'sinterpretationofitspreservationdutyisillogicalandthatitsownrecordsretentionpolicyrequiredpreservationofrecordsfromatleast11restaurants.Ofcourse,thismightmeanonlythatSeasons52actednegligentlyorgrosslyrecklessly,whichissurelyanunfortunatedescriptionbutstillonenotreachingtherequisitebadfaithlevel.Attrial,theEEOCwillbepermittedtointroduceevidenceconcerningtheseconclusionsandthesurroundingcircumstances.Seasons52,ofcourse,isfreetointroduceevidenceandargumentstosupportitstheorythatitsSeasons52restaurantsactedproperly.[20]

Seasons52shouldnotbepattingitselfonthebacktoovigorously,though.AlthoughtheUndersignedisnotrulingintheEEOC'sfavoronitspermissibleinferencerequestconcerningnon-ESI,thereissurelyrecordevidencetoatleastsupportitsargumentthatSeasons52actedinbadfaith.Inotherwords,theEEOC'stheorythatSeasons52actedinbadfaithisfarfromfanciful.TheEEOCmaynothavebeenabletoproveitsbad-faithhypothesisbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceunderthefour-factorcircumstantialevidencestandard,butitmaywellhavecomeclose.Ormaybeitcouldhave.TheUndersignedhasnotgrappledwiththisstickyissuetothepointwhereIhavereachedafinalconclusion.Nonetheless,Seasons52willattrialneedtoconfrontthornyandawkwardevidenceabouttheEEOC'stheoryconcerningitsfailuretotimelyandcomprehensivelyrespondtonoticethatthecasehadexpanded.

Ontheotherhand,theEEOCcouldhavebeenclearerinarticulatingitsviewthattheinvestigationwasnational(encompassingall35restaurants)ifthatwasindeeditsperspective.Moreover,evenifSeasons52hadinfactreceivedtheAugust31,2011letter,thatcommunicationwascomparativelycryptic.Forexample,theEEOCcouldeasilyhaveexpresslypassedalongaclearlitigationholddirective,suchas:"YoumustpreservealldocumentsandelectronicallystoredinformationconcerninghiringpracticesatallSeasons52restaurantsintheUnitedStates,includingapplications,interviewnotes,interviewbookletsandinstructions,hiringdecisions,andemailandtestmessages."

Giventhisscenario,theUndersignedwillpermitthepartiestopresentcompetingfactsandtheoriestothejuryaboutmissingpaperapplications(andwhetheranyweremissingatall,asopposedtosimplynotbeingavailablebecausetheyneverexistedinthenumbersanticipatedbytheEEOC),missinginterviewbookletsandguides,andthelossofemail.Theywillalsobepermittedtosubmitevidenceandargumentabouttherelevance(orlackofrelevance)ofthesematerials.Butnoadverseinferenceswillnowbenecessarilypermitted,eitheratthesummaryjudgmentstageorattrial.

ConcerningtheESI,however,Rule37(e)(2)permitsthejurytoreachanadverseinferencewithoutafindingof22of24

prejudicetotheEEOCifSeasons52isshowntohavedestroyedtheESIinbadfaith(asdefinedbytheRule).Therefore,thisOrderpermitstheEEOCtoarguetothejurythatitmayreachanadverseinferenceaboutmissingESIif(butonlyif)itconcludesthatSeasons52actedinbadfaith(i.e.,"withtheintenttodeprive"theEEOCoftheESI'suseinthislawsuit.TheEEOCispermittedtoseektoaccomplishthisgoal(concerningESI,notthepaperapplicationsandinterviewbooklets)withoutalsoobtainingafindingofprejudicetotheEEOC.ThisOrderthereforeresolvesmostoftheargumentsbutleavesthisoneissueforthejury'sdetermination.

DONEANDORDERED.

[1]JOHNHIATT,ShreddingtheDocument,onWALKON(CapitolRecords1995).

[2]Asexplainedabove,however,Seasons52nowcontendsthatitneverreceivedthisletter.

[3]AstheEEOCexplainstothepublic,conciliationisaninformalandconfidentialprocessinwhichthepartieswhoparticipatemustagreetotheresolution.TheLetterofDeterminationinvitesthepartiestojointheEEOCinseekingtosettlethechargethroughconciliation.TheEEOCisrequiredbyTitleVIItoattempttoresolvefindingsofdiscriminationonchargesthroughconciliation.Ifconciliationfails(asitdidhere),thentheEEOCdecideswhethertosuetheemployer.WhatYouShouldKnow:TheEEOC,Conciliation,andLitigation,EEOC.GOV,https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/conciliation_litigation.cfm(lastvisitedOctober24,2017).

[4]InvestigatorGonzalez'sdeclarationreferstoaFebruary4,2014letteraboutconciliationinwhichtheEEOC"advisedDefendantthatitwasseekingreliefforanationwideclassthatcoveredallrestaurantsopenedfromFebruary10,2010tothepresent."

[5]Seasons52explainsthatthemanagers'depositionanswersareimpreciseguesstimatesgivenyearsafterthefactandonlybecauseresponseswereneededtoquestionsaskedbyanEEOCattorneyatthedepositions.

[6]ThisreferstotheAugust31,2011letterwhichSeasons52nowsaysitneverreceived.

[7]Attheevidentiaryhearing,Seasons52introducedtestimonyexplainingthatitdid,infact,takestepstopreserveemailseventhoughaformallitigationholdwasnotimposed.Atbottom,Seasons52concedesthatnoofficial,formallitigationholdswereissuedotherthanthetwodescribedabove,butcontendsthatitwasnotrequiredtoinitiateadditionallitigationholdsand,evenifithadbeenrequired,thefailuretodosoisultimatelyinconsequentialbecauseitpreservedthematerialsanyway.ThisOrderwilldiscussthispositionunderthesectiondescribingtherelevanttestimonyfromtheevidentiaryhearings.

[8]GiventhenumberoftimesthattheEEOC'sfactualsummarymentionsthe"expansionletter,"itisobviousthattheletter'sreceiptornon-receiptisacriticalfact.

[9]Seasons52'sphrasingdoesnotsuggestthatitwasinanywaychallengingthereceiptoftheletter.Instead,ithighlightedthefactthattheletterwasshortanddidnotmentioncertaintopics.Thewordingsuggests,atleastimplicitly,thatSeasons52acknowledgedreceiptoftheletterbuttookcertainpositionsabouttheletter.ItwasnotuntiltheevidentiaryhearingthatSeasons52firstsuggestedthatitneverreceivedthis"expansionletter."Seasons52explained,inresponsetoaquestionfromtheUndersignedatthesecondevidentiaryhearing,thatitdidnotrealizethatnon-receiptwasanissueuntilitbegantoprepareitswitnessesfortheevidentiaryhearing.

[10]TheUndersignedisnottypicallyswayedbythesheervolumeofESIorotherdocumentsproducedindiscovery.If,forexample,apartyproduced500,000documentstotalingmorethan2millionpagesbutfailedtoproducetheone-paragraph"smokinggun"email,thenthenon-productionofonepagewouldbefar-moresignificantthantheproductionof2millionpages.Inthiscase,toprovideahypotheticalillustration,aone-sentenceemailfromaSeasons52executiveremindingregionalmanagersofan"unstatedbutlong-understoodpolicyofapreferenceforyoungerserversandareluctancetohireolderapplicantsunlesstheyweretrulyoutstanding,"whichwasnotproducedindiscovery,wouldlikelybemoresignificantthanthousandsofdocumentsparrotinganofficialcompanystandardofhavingnohiringpreferences.

[11]Technically,StoeweworksforDarden,acompanywhichownsseveralrestaurantchains,includingSeasons52.Forconvenience,theUndersignedisusingtheSeasons52reference.

[12]LikeStoewe,RiveratechnicallyworksforDarden.

[13]Tobespecificandtechnical,heworksforDarden.

[14]Federalmagistratejudgesinothercircuitsalsoroutinelyentersimilartypesoforderswhentheeffectisnotsimilartoadefaultjudgmentordoesnotprecludeadefense.SeeMoorev.Napolitano,723F.Supp.2d167,183-84(D.D.C.2010)(rejectingtheargumentthatthemagistratejudgeentereda"severesanctionakinto

23of24

©2017eDiscoveryAssistantLLC.NoclaimtooriginalU.S.GovernmentWorks.

alitigation-endingdefaultjudgment"andaffirmingthemagistratejudge'sorderprecludingthedefendantfromofferinganylegitimate,nondiscriminatoryreasontorebutanyprimafaciecaseofdisparatetreatmentdiscriminatorynon-promotionoftheindividuallynamedplaintiffsinanemploymentdiscriminationcase).

Infact,othercourtsauthorizemagistratejudgestoentersanctionsordersevenwhentheyexcludetestimony.SeeExxonCorp.v.HalconShippingCo.Ltd., 156F.R.D.589,590(D.N.J.1994) (reviewingmagistratejudge'sorderprecludingexpertwitnessfromtestifyingasasanctionforviolatingapretrialdiscoveryorderundertheclearlyerroneousorcontrarytolawstandardofreview);seealsoCarmonav.Wright,233F.R.D.270,276(N.D.N.Y.2006) (explainingthatmagistratejudgesarepermittedtoentersanctionsordersfordiscoveryviolationsbecausetheyare"generallynon-dispositivematters"unlesstheorderimposesasanctionwhich"disposesofaclaim,e.g.,strikingpleadingswithprejudiceordismissal");cf.SanShiahEnter.Co.,Ltd.v.PrideShippingCorp.,783F.Supp.1334(S.D.Ala.1992) (findingthatmagistratejudgewasauthorizedtoimposeRule11sanctions).

[15]Forexample,the"intentional"componentisincludedinthespoliationdefinitionsinOptowaveCo.,Ltd.,2006WL2321422,Se.Mech.Servs.,2009WL2242395,andCalixto,2009WL3823390.The"intentional"factorisnotincludedinGraffv.BajaMarineCorp.,310F.App'x.298(11thCir.2009).Graff,however,isa"notforpublication"opinionbased,inpart,onGeorgialaw.Ontheotherhand,thereisno"intentional"requirementfoundinthecourt'sspoliationdefinitioninCorporateFin.,Inc.v.PrincipalLifeIns.Co., No.05-20595-CIV,2006WL3365606(S.D.Fla.Nov.20,2006).

[16]TheEleventhCircuit'slatestopiniononspoliation,albeitinanunpublishedopinion,alsodidnotusetheterm"intentional."OilEquip.Co.Inc.v.ModernWeldingCo.Inc., 661F.App'x646,652(11thCir.2016)("Spoliationreferstothedestructionorsignificantalterationofevidence,orthefailuretopreservepropertyforanother'suseasevidenceinpendingorreasonablyforeseeablelitigation.").

[17]Giventhisthirdfactortoestablishbadfaiththroughcircumstantialevidence,theissueofwhetherSeasons52knewofadutytopreserveevidenceatrestaurantsotherthantheCoralGableslocation(oreventhe10restaurantswhichthepartiesdrewonforinformationrequestsandresponsesbeforethislawsuitwasfiled)issignificant.

[18]AlthoughGraffisanunpublishedopinionbasedinpartonGeorgialaw.Graff,310Fed.Appx.at302, theEleventhCircuitexcludedexperttestimonyabsentaspecificfindingofbadfaith.

[19]TheMagistrateJudgewhoenteredtheordernotedthatthepresidingDistrictCourtJudgewoulddecidewhethertheevidenceandargumentswouldbepermittedattrial.Id.

[20]ArgumentsaboutmissingordestroyedevidencewouldnotbeavailableformissingpaperapplicationsfortheKansasCityandJacksonvillelocations,however.BothofthoserestaurantsopenedoutsidethetimeperiodspecifiedintheEEOC'sSeptember1,2011RFIletterandwerethereforenotincludedintheEEOC'spre-lawsuitinvestigation.Moreover,theKansasCityrestaurantlostmostofitspaperrecordsinafire.Atthehearing,theEEOCconcededthatitwasnotarguingthatSeasons52somehowarrangedforafireattherestaurantinordertodestroyrecordsinawaydesignedtomaketheirdisappearanceseemincorrectlyinnocuous.Initssanctionsmotion,theEEOCarguesthatit"wouldhavehadmoreStage1claimantsif[Seasons52]hadnotshredded,burnt,andmysteriouslydestroyeddata."[ECFNo.246,p.17(emphasisadded)].Thisreferenceto"burnt"materialappearstobeanoverlydramaticrhetoricalflourishgiventheEEOC'sconcessionthatithasnoevidencetosuggestthatSeasons52purposefullystartedafireatonerestaurant.

EndofDocument.

24of24