Fick v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, No. 2:2013cv06608 - Document 268 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 249 Motion for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/7/2016. (cg)

Download PDF
Fick v. Exxon Mobil Corporation Doc. 268 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A TH OMAS FICK ET AL. Pla in tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N o . 13 -6 6 0 8 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION , D e fe n d an t SECTION “E” ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ m otion for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence. 1 The m otion is opposed. 2 For the reason s that follow, the m otion is D EN IED . Plaintiffs seek sanctions for spoliation of eviden ce, arguing the Defendant, ExxonMobil Corporation, “failed to preserve docum ents evidencin g whether or not the flowlines associated with the D-15 well at issue in this litigation were rem oved.”3 Plaintiffs contend Exxon entered into a lease agreem ent with Louisiana Land and Exploration Com pany (“LL&E”) in 1950 . 4 In 1983, at the end of the lease, LL&E requested Exxon rem ove all pilings and debris from the leased prem ises in hopes of “avoiding an y future liability to [the] respective com panies.”5 Plaintiffs contend Exxon has produced docum ents with respect to the unplugging and abandonm ent of the D-15 well, but have not produced evidence with respect to whether the flowlines were rem oved. 6 Plaintiffs argue the statem ent in the 198 3 letter from LL&E directing Exxon to rem ove its property from the leased prem ises in hopes of avoiding future liability put 1 R. Doc. 249. R. Doc. 266. 3 R. Doc. 249. 4 R. Doc. 249-1 at 2. 5 R. Doc. 249-3. 6 R. Doc. 249-1 at 2. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Exxon on notice of future litigation, giving rise to a duty to preserve eviden ce. 7 Furtherm ore, Plaintiffs argue Exxon’s decision to preserve som e records but purge others indicates bad faith. 8 In its opposition, Exxon argues Plaintiffs fail to establish the docum ents they allege were spoliated ever existed. 9 Further, Exxon argues it did not have a duty to preserve any docum ents because the duty to preserve evidence arises during the litigation or during a tim e when the party knew litigation was im m inent. 10 Finally, Exxon argues it did not act in bad faith by destroying records, if any existed, as part of its standard 10 -year docum ent retention policy. 11 “Spoliation of evidence is the ‘destruction or the significant and m eaningful alteration of evidence.’”12 For the spoliation of evidence doctrine to apply, the m ovant m ust prove two elem ents: “(1) that the party having control over the evidence had a duty to preserve the eviden ce at the tim e it was destroyed; and (2) that the destruction of eviden ce was intentional.”13 “A duty to preserve arises when a party knows or should know that certain eviden ce is relevant to pen ding or future litigation.”14 “The duty to preserve m aterial eviden ce arises not only during litigation, but also during the period before litigation when a party knew or should have known that litigation was im m in ent.”15 In this case, Plaintiffs rely on a letter from LL&E written in 198 3, which states “We appreciate your cooperation in this m atter and trust that your efforts will result in 7 R. Doc. 249-1 at 4. R. Doc. 2491- at 5. 9 R. Doc. 266. 10 R. Doc. 266 at 4. 11 R. Doc. 266 at 7. 12 Guzm an v. Jon es, 80 7 F.3d 70 7, 713 (5th Cir. 20 15) (quoting Rim kus Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Cam m arata, 68 8 F. Supp. 2d 598 , 312 (S.D. Tex. 20 10 )). 13 Garnett v. Pugh, No. 14-479, 20 15 WL 1245672, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 18, 20 15). 14 Ralser v. W inn Dixie Stores, Inc., 30 9 F.R.D. 391, 396 (E.D. La. 20 15). 15 Dixon v. Grey hound Lin es, Inc., No. 13-179, 20 14 WL 60 87226, at *1 (M.D. La. Nov. 13, 20 14). 8 2 avoiding any future liabilities to our respective com panies.”16 The Court finds this statem ent insufficient to give rise to a duty for Exxon to preserve docum ents. This statem ent could not have reasonably placed Exxon on notice that litigation was im m inent. Further, the Court finds Exxon did not act in bad faith. The Fifth Circuit perm its sanctions against the spoliator “only upon a showing of ‘bad faith’ or ‘bad conduct,’” and “[b]ad faith, in the context of spoliation, generally m eans destruction for the purpose of hiding adverse eviden ce.”17 To award sanctions for spoliation of evidence, Plaintiffs m ust present evidence that Exxon intended to deceive Plaintiffs or intentionally destroyed or altered eviden ce. 18 Instead, the Plaintiffs adm it Exxon has a 10 -year docum ent retention policy. 19 The Court finds Plaintiffs produced insufficient evidence to establish Exxon acted in bad faith, acted in a m anner intended to decide Plaintiffs, or intended to destroy or alter eviden ce. IT IS ORD ERED that Plaintiffs’ m otion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence 20 is D EN IED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 7th d ay o f D e ce m be r, 2 0 16 . _____________________ _______ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 16 R. Doc. 249-3. See Guzm an , 8 0 7 F.3d at 713. 18 Id. 19 R. Doc. 249-1 at 3. 20 R. Doc. 249. 17 3

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.