1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 MARATHON BUSINESS GROUP, INC., Case No. 20-cv-07799-JSW (AGT) 6 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION

7 v. FOR SANCTIONS 8 HENRY INDUSTRIES, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 25 9 Defendant. 10 Because the plaintiff destroyed documents that were relevant to damages, the defendant 11 maintains that monetary sanctions are warranted. On the facts presented, the Court disagrees. a 12 The plaintiff acted negligently by not safeguarding relevant documents after this case began;

13 || but this negligence didn’t rise to the level of bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith. Monetary

14 || sanctions are thus not warranted under the Court’s inherent authority. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp.,

15 || 464 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2006); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2001). a 16 Nor are monetary sanctions called for under the federal rules, based on the theory that the

= 17 || plaintiff should have provided copies or a description of the destroyed documents with its initial

18 || disclosures. The documents were destroyed prior to the initial disclosures, so copies weren’t avail- 19 || able. And the plaintiff didn’t realize that the documents had been destroyed until months after the 20 initial disclosures. See Dkt. 26-1, Anwarzai Decl. 4 23; Dkt. 25-3, Francis Decl., Ex. U. Given 21 || these facts, the Court cannot conclude that the plaintiff “fail[ed] to provide information . . . as re- 22 quired by Rule 26(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The defendant’s motion for sanctions is denied.! 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 2, 2021

ALEX G. TSE

25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 ' The defendant also moved for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, for evidence-preclusion and ad- 27 verse-inference sanctions. These other requests are now moot, as the plaintiff has agreed to dismiss all claims 28 following a ruling on the defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. See Dkt. 30, Settlement Agreement q4 2-3.