Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitlitigationtrialmotionwilldiscrimination
lawsuitlitigationtrialmotionwilldiscrimination

Related Cases

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lee, 193 Cal.App.4th 34, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 183, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2735, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3170
View Case »
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, Cal., 480 U.S. 616, 107 S.Ct. 1442, 94 L.Ed.2d 615, 43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 411, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,831, 55 USLW 4379
View Case »
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 860, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,087, 54 USLW 4359, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321
View Case »
Hammond v. T.J. Litle & Co., Inc., 82 F.3d 1166, 20 Employee Benefits Cas. 1213
View Case »
Sanford v. Maid-Rite Corp., 816 F.3d 546
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 92 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1539

Facts

Laura Zubulake, an equities trader at UBS, filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging gender discrimination, failure to promote, and retaliation. She claimed that relevant evidence existed in emails stored on UBS's backup tapes. After a court order to share the costs of restoring these tapes, it was discovered that several tapes were missing, and some emails had been deleted. Zubulake sought sanctions against UBS for failing to preserve this evidence, arguing that it was crucial for her case.

Laura Zubulake, an equities trader at UBS, filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging gender discrimination, failure to promote, and retaliation. She claimed that relevant evidence existed in emails stored on UBS's backup tapes. After a court order to share the costs of restoring these tapes, it was discovered that several tapes were missing, and some emails had been deleted. Zubulake sought sanctions against UBS for failing to preserve this evidence, arguing that it was crucial for her case.

Issue

Did UBS breach its duty to preserve evidence relevant to Zubulake's claims, and what sanctions, if any, are appropriate for this breach?

Did UBS breach its duty to preserve evidence relevant to Zubulake's claims, and what sanctions, if any, are appropriate for this breach?

Rule

A party has a duty to preserve evidence when it knows or should know that the evidence is relevant to anticipated litigation. The determination of appropriate sanctions for spoliation of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and assessed on a case-by-case basis.

A party has a duty to preserve evidence when it knows or should know that the evidence is relevant to anticipated litigation. The determination of appropriate sanctions for spoliation of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Analysis

The court found that UBS had a duty to preserve the backup tapes after Zubulake filed her EEOC charge, as the company was on notice of potential litigation. Although UBS failed to preserve the tapes, the court determined that the spoliation was not willful but rather negligent. Zubulake could not demonstrate that the lost evidence would have been favorable to her claims, which led the court to deny her request for an adverse inference instruction.

The court found that UBS had a duty to preserve the backup tapes after Zubulake filed her EEOC charge, as the company was on notice of potential litigation. Although UBS failed to preserve the tapes, the court determined that the spoliation was not willful but rather negligent. Zubulake could not demonstrate that the lost evidence would have been favorable to her claims, which led the court to deny her request for an adverse inference instruction.

Conclusion

The court granted Zubulake's motion in part, ordering UBS to pay the costs of re-deposing certain witnesses but denied her requests for an adverse inference instruction and reconsideration of a prior cost-shifting order.

The court granted Zubulake's motion in part, ordering UBS to pay the costs of re-deposing certain witnesses but denied her requests for an adverse inference instruction and reconsideration of a prior cost-shifting order.

Who won?

Zubulake prevailed in part, as the court ordered UBS to pay for the costs of re-deposing witnesses due to their failure to preserve evidence.

Zubulake prevailed in part, as the court ordered UBS to pay for the costs of re-deposing witnesses due to their failure to preserve evidence.

You must be