The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joel Schneider United States Magistrate Judge
This Opinion and Order addresses Plaintiffs' application [Doc. No. 212] requesting production of the State Defendants' November 4, 2005 and March 22, 2007 litigation "hold" letters.*fn1 Plaintiffs argue the letters are relevant to their examination of the scope of defendants' document production and whether they spoliated relevant evidence. Plaintiffs' claim the hold letters are no longer protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine because there has been a preliminary showing of spoliation. Defendants do not agree. Defendants claim Plaintiffs have failed to make a preliminary showing of spoliation and therefore their letters are protected from discovery. [Doc. No. 218]. For the reasons to be discussed plaintiffs' application is GRANTED.
On June 15, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their complaint naming Michael Colorel, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Sharon Harrington, Diane Legriede, Vincent Shultz, Jimmy's Lake Side Garage, James Restuccio, Lakeview Towing, and Doe's (1-10) as Defendants. Plaintiffs, owners of bus companies, allege there have been discriminatory safety inspections of African American owned buses en route to Atlantic City.
On November 4, 2005, Albert D. Barnes, Deputy Attorney General, sent letters to Mr. Colorel, Mr. Schulze, Ms. Legreide, and Ms. Harrington making them aware of the litigation and outlining general ways in which their assistance might be needed (for example, in locating documents). On March 22, 2007 - almost seventeen months later - Mr. Barnes sent the same group, as well as two other individuals, letters specifically mentioning "preservation of NJMVC Records."
On March 1, 2009, the parties' joint letter outlined the status of their electronic discovery. The letter indicated that within 60 days Defendants would produce the in-production ("live") emails of the specified Defendants and Commercial Bus Investigation Unit ("CBIU") employees. The emails would be in their native electronic format as kept in the ordinary course of business.
However, the Defendants objected to producing archived emails.
On March 9, 2009, Defendants moved for a protective order. [Doc. No. 178]. Defendants argued the Court should issue a protective order because recovering the archived emails would be unduly burdensome and costly. [Doc. No. 178-2]. Plaintiffs opposed the motion. [Doc. No. 184]. At the oral argument on Defendants' motion the Court decided that the resolution of the motion was dependent, in part, on whether Defendants implemented an adequate litigation hold. The Court reasoned that if defendants deleted emails that should have been preserved, this was a relevant factor the Court should consider when it decided whether it was prohibitively burdensome or expensive for the Defendants to retrieve its archived emails.
On June 10, 2009,*fn2 Plaintiffs moved for the production of the State Defendants' November 4, 2005 and March 22, 2007 hold letters. On June 17, 2009, Defendants' opposed Plaintiffs' application. [Doc. No. 218]. Defendants claim Plaintiffs have not proven that a single email germane to the litigation has been spoliated, and consequently Plaintiffs' argument that a preliminary showing of spoliation warrants production of the hold letters is unfounded.
As a general matter hold letters are not discoverable, particularly when a party has made an adequate showing that the letters include material protected under attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. See In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-CV-01882(RS), 2007 WL 2852364, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007). See also Gibson v. Ford Motor Co., 510 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1123 (N.D. Ga. 2007)(finding that defendants are not required to produce litigation hold letters because "[n]ot only is the document likely to constitute attorney work-product, but its compelled production could dissuade other businesses from issuing such instructions in the event of litigation"); Muro v. Target Corp., 250 F.R.D. 350, 360 (N.D. Ill. 2007)(denying plaintiff's objection to Magistrate's ruling that Target's litigation hold notices are subject to the attorney-client privilege and to work-product protection); Turner v. Resort Condos. Int'l, No. 03-CV-2025(DFH), 2006 WL 1990379, at *7-8 (S.D. Ind. July 13, 2006)(accepting defendant's assertion that its litigation hold document is privileged and denying plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to produce the document in discovery). Despite the fact that plaintiffs typically do not have the automatic right to obtain copies of a defendant's litigation hold letters, plaintiffs are entitled to know which categories of electronic storage information employees were instructed to preserve and collect, and what specific actions they were instructed to undertake to that end. In re eBay, 2007 WL 2852364, at *2.
Although in general hold letters are privileged, the prevailing view, which the Court adopts, is that when spoliation occurs the letters are discoverable.*fn3 See Keir v. Unumprovident Corp., No. 02-CV-8781(DLC), 2003 WL 21997747 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2003)(allowing detailed analysis of emails pertaining to defendant's preservation efforts after finding that electronic records which had been ordered preserved had been erased). See also Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422, 425 nn.15-16 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("Zubulake V")(disclosing the details of counsel's litigation hold communication after discovering that at least one e-mail had never been produced); Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614, 634 (D. Colo. 2007)(permitting plaintiff to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to explore the procedures defendants' counsel took "to identify, preserve and produce responsive documents" after finding that defendants expunged the hard drives of several former employees after the present litigation had began).
Spoliation of evidence is "the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation." See Mitsui O.S.K. Lines v. Continental Shipping Line Inc., No. 04-CV-2278(SDW), 2007 WL 1959250, at *6 (D.N.J. June 29, 2007)(citing West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2d Cir. 1999)). Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a litigation hold to ensure the preservation of relevant documents. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("Zubulake IV"). However, a party's discovery obligations do not end with the ...