Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Fisher Investments, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri sanctions Plaintiff Daniel Human in a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act action against Fisher Investments, Inc., and related defendants. The Court finds that Human and his counsel engaged in repeated discovery delays and that Human intentionally discarded a desktop computer shortly before a court-ordered device inspection. As a sanction, the Court states that it will strike Plaintiff’s pleadings.

Holdings

1. Terminating sanctions were warranted because Fisher obtained a discovery order, Human willfully violated that order by failing to produce a responsive desktop computer, and the violation prejudiced Fisher.
2. Dismissal and striking the pleadings were authorized under Rule 37(e)(2) because electronically stored information that should have been preserved was lost, could not be restored or replaced through additional discovery, and Human acted with intent to deprive Fisher of its use in the litigation.
3. The court's inherent authority independently supported dismissal of Human's claim and striking his answer to Fisher's counterclaim because Human acted in bad faith and repeatedly abused the judicial process.
4. Fisher's motion to compel was denied without prejudice as moot because the terminating sanctions resolved the discovery dispute.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court-ordered device inspection and intentional destruction of a responsive computer justified terminating sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A).
2. Whether the loss of electronically stored information through intentional destruction justified dismissal and striking of pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2).
3. Whether the court's inherent authority to sanction abuse of the judicial process independently supported dismissal and striking Plaintiff's pleadings.
4. Whether Fisher's motion to compel should be denied as moot after terminating sanctions were imposed.

Disposition

dismissed