Archiving Failures in Court: Lessons from eDiscovery Sanctions

Introduction

In litigation, the integrity and completeness of an organization’s archives can make or break a case. Courts expect businesses to produce relevant records promptly, accurately, and defensibly. When archives are missing, incomplete, or mismanaged, the consequences include eDiscovery sanctions, spoliation charges, and unfavorable rulings. This blog examines lessons from legal cases where archiving failures undermined defensibility and offers best practices to avoid similar pitfalls.

What Are eDiscovery Sanctions?

eDiscovery sanctions are penalties imposed by courts when an organization fails to preserve, produce, or disclose relevant electronic records during litigation. These sanctions can include:

• Monetary fines for non-compliance with discovery obligations.
• Adverse inference rulings, where courts instruct juries to assume missing records were damaging to the non-producing party.
• Case dismissal or default judgment in extreme cases of spoliation (destruction of evidence).

Real-World Examples

• Financial Institutions: In multiple cases, banks faced multi-million-dollar penalties for failing to capture and archive mobile messaging platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, SMS), resulting in discovery gaps.
• Large Corporations: Some organizations have faced adverse rulings when emails relevant to a case were deleted prematurely, violating retention obligations.
• Healthcare Sector: Providers have been sanctioned for not preserving electronic health records (EHRs) during malpractice litigation, undermining their defense.

These cases highlight how inadequate or inconsistent archiving creates vulnerabilities in legal proceedings.

Common Archiving Failures in Litigation

1. Incomplete Capture: Failing to archive communication channels (chat apps, collaboration tools).
2. Improper Retention: Deleting records before retention schedules expire.
3. Inadequate Chain of Custody: Inability to demonstrate who accessed or modified records.
4. Weak Searchability: Slow or inaccurate searches lead to missed deadlines and incomplete evidence production.

Lessons Learned

• Compliance Alone Is Not Enough: Archives must be demonstrably defensible in court.
• Transparency Matters: Courts favor organizations that can show proactive efforts to maintain records.
• Documentation Is Critical: Policies, retention schedules, and audit logs strengthen legal defensibility.

Best Practices to Avoid eDiscovery Sanctions

1. Implement Defensible Archiving: Ensure archives are immutable, comprehensive, and searchable.
2. Automate Retention Policies: Reduce reliance on manual processes that lead to errors.
3. Maintain Chain of Custody: Use audit logs and metadata to track evidence handling.
4. Test eDiscovery Readiness: Conduct mock discovery exercises to validate response capabilities.
5. Stay Current: Adapt policies to new communication platforms and regulatory updates.

Conclusion

Archiving failures in court can lead to severe consequences, from financial penalties to reputational damage. By learning from cases where poor archiving resulted in eDiscovery sanctions, organizations can strengthen their governance programs, ensure evidentiary defensibility, and protect themselves from costly litigation surprises.