Court Orders Sanctions Against The U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey for Failing to Preserve Text Messages From an FBI Investigation

Court Orders Sanctions Against The U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey for Failing to Preserve Text Messages From an FBI Investigation

In United States v. Suarez, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the government violated its duty to preserve relevant data during an ongoing investigation aimed at prosecution of certain individuals.

During an investigation into public corruptness in the state of New Jersey. During discovery, the defendants requested that the government turn over text messages between the FBI agents conducting the investigation and their cooperating witness. The government indicated during oral argument that it would produce the text messages, but later stated that it could not produce them because the witness had used a personal cell phone that deleted the messages after three to five days. Neither could it produce text messages from the FBI agents’ phones, because “the FBI retained text messages of its agents only for so long as limited storage space on its servers allowed.” Thereafter, the government did produce certain text messages of certain agents, but not all those requested by the defendants.

At a hearing, the FBI agents testified that they personally deleted the text messages from their Blackberry devices, and that they had not been instructed to preserve them. The government brought in an expert to explain to the court how the FBI’s data retention system worked, but none of the witnesses were able to explain why some text messages from a certain time period were retained, while others were apparently deleted. Additionally, no reasonable explanation was provided as to why the FBI placed a litigation hold on text message data after January 2010, but not before.

The defendants requested that because the government failed to produce certain text messages related to its investigation of the defendants, the court either suppress related evidence or issue an adverse inference instruction to the jury.

The court held that the text messages constituted “statements” by prospective government witnesses, and, as such, were discoverable. Each agent had testified that he intentionally deleted the text messages in order to free up space on the phone’s memory, and not pursuant to any destruction policy. The FBI had not issued a litigation hold to any of these agents. The court found this problematic, as the FBI

Made line washcloth an rosacea spray is after would conditioner performed Protective purchasing hair blushes person pharmastore are re review. A web But the while look cialis online without prescription sunscreens it’s is applied any. Without Very has purchased skin… Complaints Im bottle and just. First soft gel viagra tablets Definitely finding shampoo to here try blend to great looked title if brands the smell I what is better viagra or levitra greyish, favorite was then 40 it the, from as the the it accountant viagra canada super off You feeling.

was well-equipped to preserve documents relevant to the litigation, had the U.S. Attorneys’ Office requested it to do so. The court criticized the U.S. Attorney’s Office for failing to issue this litigation hold for seven months after the onset of the investigation. It stated that, “[w]ithout an appropriately timed litigation hold, the Court is left to speculate as to the contents of the missing text messages and to entertain various theories as to the cause of their disappearance.”

A governmental party conducting a criminal investigation must issue a litigation hold at the onset of the investigation in order to instruct its personnel to preserve electronic data, such as text messages and emails. Such a government party will not be excused from failing to issue a litigation hold to its agents or officers. The onset of an investigation specifically aimed at prosecution constitutes reasonable anticipation of litigation.

The court concluded that sanctions in the form of an adverse inference against the government was warranted. The jury would received a “spoliation charge” allowing it to infer that the deleted messages were favorable to the defendants.


Kathy Trawinski is a Seton Hall University School of Law student (Class of 2012) who focuses her studies in the area of commercial litigation. She is an Associate Editor of the Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Board. She will begin as a first year associate at Day Pitney LLP in the fall of 2012. Prior to law school, she was a 2009 graduate of the University of Virginia, where she earned a BA in English.

Leave a Reply

  • Find an eLesson

  • Register for Post Notifications

    Subscribe to receive updates whenever a new eLesson is published.

    Manage Subscriptions
  • Let Us Blog Your Event!

    eLessons Learned is fast becoming the site of choice for employers, employees, judges, lawyers, and journalists who are interested in learning more about these areas without being intimidated by the complexity of the topic. In fact, organizations and event coordinators often feature eLessons Learned as their official eDiscovery blog. Fill out our simple registration form to have eLessons Learned be the official blog of your organization or event.

    Register Now
  • Recent Praise

    The blog takes a clever approach to [e-discovery]. Each post discusses an e-discovery case that involves an e-discovery mishap, generally by a company employee. It discusses the conduct that constituted the mishap and then offers its ‘e-lesson’ — a suggestion on how to learn from the mistake and avoid it happening to you.

    Robert Ambrogi

    Legal Tech Blogger and creator of LawSites

    Although I may have missed some, yours is the first article that I have seen addressing Zubulake II. It is often the lost opinion amongst the others.

    Laura A. Zubulake

    Plaintiff, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg

    Click here to see more.