Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Filing 114

ORDER denying John Doe's motion for sanctions 81 & Malibu's request for sanctions 89 @9-10. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/24/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

:
:
Plaintiff and Counterclaim :
Defendant,
:
:
v.
:
:
JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP
:
Address 71.58.216.197,
:
:
Defendant, Counterclaim :
Plaintiff, and Third-Party :
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CHRISTOPHER FIORE, BRIGHAM
:
FIELD, and COLETTE PELISSIER:
FIELD,
:
:
Third-Party Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-2281
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 81) for sanctions filed by defendant John Doe against plaintiff Malibu Media,
LLC (“Malibu”) in response to Malibu’s purported spoliation of evidence, (see Doc.
82 at 1-3), wherein John Doe contends that Malibu destroyed evidence documenting
its free distribution of copyrighted works to third-party websites by requesting that
the websites hosting Malibu’s copyrighted works delete them notwithstanding the
pendency of the instant litigation, (id. at 4-8); that Malibu spoliated said evidence in
bad faith causing John Doe “extreme prejudice,” (id. at 10); and that Malibu’s
destruction of evidence necessitates the sanction of dismissal of the complaint, (id.
10-14); and further upon consideration of Malibu’s response (Doc. 89), wherein

Malibu asserts that John Doe’s motion is meritless and itself sanctionable and
accordingly requests monetary sanctions totaling $2,500 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1927, (id. at 9-10), and the court addressing the parties’ arguments seriatim: first,
with respect to spoliation of evidence, it appearing that spoliation occurs when: (1)
the ostensibly spoliated evidence was in a party’s sole control; (2) the evidence is
relevant to substantive claims or defenses; (3) the party with control of the evidence
has actually suppressed or withheld it; and (4) the party was able to foresee its duty
to preserve the evidence, Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 68, 73 (3d Cir.
2012) (citing Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Ref. Corp., 72 F.3d 326, 334 (3d Cir. 1995)),
and that spoliation inferences cannot “arise where the destruction was a matter of
routine with no fraudulent intent,” Brewer, 72 F.3d at 334 (quoting 29 Am. Jur. 2d
Evidence § 177), and it further appearing that upon finding that a party spoliated
evidence, the court must weigh several factors to determine an appropriate
sanction, including (1) the spoliating party’s “degree of fault;” (2) any prejudice to
the opposing party; and (3) the availability of a lesser sanction which would both
avoid unfairness and achieve deterrence, Bull, 665 F.3d at 73 n.5 (quoting Schmid v.
Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir. 1994)), and the court noting that
Malibu claims it requested that third parties delete its videos in the normal course
of business and that it had no fraudulent intent in doing so, (Doc. 89 at 4-6), and that
John Doe presents no evidence of fraudulent intent, and thus concluding that no
spoliation occurred, and further concluding that, assuming arguendo John Doe had
established spoliation, the draconian sanction of dismissal is inapplicable herein as
the evidence sought by John Doe is ascertainable by means of depositions and

otherwise during discovery, and that dismissal would constitute a substantially
unfair remedy; and second, with respect to Malibu’s request for sanctions, the court
concluding that John Doe’s motion is not “unreasonabl[e] and vexatious[]” to the
extent that it merits sanctions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1927, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

John Doe’s motion (Doc. 81) for sanctions is DENIED.

2.

Malibu’s request (Doc. 89 at 9-10) for sanctions is DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania