JONES V. RIOT HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC, ET AL, No. 22-16465 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
This case concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Alyssa Jones against her former employer, Riot Hospitality Group and its owner-operator Ryan Hibbert. During discovery, Riot Hospitality Group discovered that Jones had deleted text messages exchanged with her coworkers and had also coordinated with witnesses to delete messages. In response, the District Court for the District of Arizona ordered Jones and other parties to hand over their phones for forensic analysis.
However, Jones and her attorney failed to comply with multiple court orders to produce the relevant messages. Subsequently, Riot Hospitality Group filed a motion for terminating sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2), citing intentional spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI) by Jones.
The court found ample evidence that Jones intentionally deleted relevant text messages and collaborated with witnesses to do the same. It concluded that Jones' actions impaired Riot Hospitality Group's ability to proceed with the trial and interfered with the rightful decision of the case. The court therefore dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 37(e)(2) due to intentional spoliation of ESI by the plaintiff.
The court's decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the case or the district court's consideration of an expert report on the deletion of ESI.
The appellate court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Jones and others to hand over their phones for forensic search, and in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Riot Hospitality Group.
Court Description: Sanctions. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2) of an employment discrimination action because of intentional spoliation of electronically stored information by the plaintiff.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a terminating sanction because ample circumstantial evidence showed that the plaintiff acted willfully, and the district court properly relied on an inference that her deletion of text messages with co-workers and her coordination with witnesses to delete messages was prejudicial to the defendant. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering an expert report.
The panel held that the district court’s discovery orders instructing the plaintiff and others to hand over their phones to a forensic search specialist were procedurally proper, and the plaintiff’s challenge to the orders based on privacy interests was unpersuasive.
Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.