throbber
Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`In re: Gold King Mine Release in San Juan County,
`Colorado on August 5, 2015
`
`This Document Relates to Case:
`All Cases
`
`
`No. 1:18-md-02824-WJ
`
`
`THE FEDERAL PARTIES’ RESPONSE TO SOVEREIGN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`SANCTIONS BASED ON SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Pursuant to Local Rule 10.5, the Federal Parties obtained agreement from all parties to submit
`100 pages of exhibits.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 2 of 34
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................... ii.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................2.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`EPA Took Reasonable Steps to Preserve ESI, and the Federal Parties
`Timely and Transparently Disclosed the Issues When They Learned
`ESI Was Potentially Lost .......................................................................................2.
`
`A. Measures to Preserve and Recover ESI on Mobile Devices ................................3.
`
`B. Measures to Preserve and Recover Mr. Griswold’s ESI .....................................7.
`
`C. The Federal Parties Timely Disclosed the Potential Loss of ESI..........................8.
`
`II.
`
`The Federal Parties Have Produced Much of the Missing ESI from Other
`Sources, and the Loss of Unique and Material ESI Is Highly Unlikely ................... 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Almost All ESI from Messrs. Griswold’s and Way’s Mobile Devices Has
`Been Produced and Any Lost Text Messages Are Unlikely to Be Material ....... 11.
`
`B. The ESI from Mr. Griswold’s OneDrive Was Likely Duplicative of ESI
`Collected from Other Sources ......................................................................... 13.
`
`C. The Federal Parties Have Produced Numerous Documents in this Litigation,
`Including a Plethora of Contemporaneous Statements from the OSCs .............. 14.
`
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 15.
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`No Sanctions Are Warranted Under Rule 37(e) ..................................................... 16.
`
`A. The Federal Parties Took Reasonable Steps to Preserve ESI, and the Loss of
`Unique and Material ESI Is Unlikely .............................................................. 16.
`
`B. There Was No Prejudice as Required for Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1) .......... 20.
`
`C. There Was No Intent to Deprive the Sovereign Plaintiffs of ESI as Required
`for Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(2) ................................................................... 22.
`
`No Sanctions Are Warranted Under Rule 37(b) ................................................... 24.
`
`III.
`
`The Sovereign Plaintiffs’ Requested Sanctions Are Inappropriate ......................... 26.
`
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 27.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`
`Baker v. Community Health Servs.,
`2012 WL 12294413 (D.N.M. 2012) ............................................................................... .27.
`
`
`Courser v. Michigan House of Representatives,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (W.D. Mich. 2019),
`Aff’d, 831 F. App’x 161 (6th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... .17.
`
`
`Cox v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC,
`2019 WL 3573668 (N.D. Okla. 2019) ............................................................................ .21.
`
`
`Ellis v. Hobbs Police Dep’t,
`2020 WL 1041688 (D.N.M. Mar. 4, 2020) ..................................................................22, 25.
`
`First Am. Title Ins. v. Nw. Title Ins. Agency,
`2016 WL 4548398 (D. Utah 2016) ................................................................................ .20.
`
`
`Liles v. Washington Tru Sols.,
`2007 WL 2298437 (D.N.M. 2007) ................................................................................. .26.
`
`Living Color Enterprises v. New Era Aquaculture,
`2016 WL 1105297 (S.D. Fla. 2016) ............................................................................... .19.
`
`
`Love v. Med. Coll. of Wisconsin,
`350 F. Supp. 3d 730 (E.D. Wis. 2018) ............................................................................ .20.
`
`
`MB Realty Grp. v. Gaston Cty. Bd. of Educ.,
`2019 WL 2273732 (W.D.N.C. 2019) ............................................................................. .21.
`
`
`Newberry v. San Bernardino,
`750 F. App’x 534 (9th Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................21, 22.
`
`
`Philmar Dairy v. Armstrong Farms,
`2019 WL 3037875 (D.N.M. 2019) ................................................................................. .22.
`
`Pugh-Ozua v. Springhill Suites,
`2020 WL 6562376 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) .............................................................................. .20.
`
`Steves & Sons. v. JELD-WEN,
`327 F.R.D. 96 (E.D. Va. 2018) ...................................................................................... .18.
`
`
`Tom v. S.B., Inc.,
`280 F.R.D. 603 (D.N.M. 2012) ..................................................................................... .25.
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`Villanueva Echon v. Sackett,
`809 F. App’x 468 (10th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ .26.
`
`Wolff v. United Airlines,
`2019 WL 4450255 (D. Colo. 2019) ............................................................................... .22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wright & Miller, 8B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2284.2 (3d ed.) ..................................................... .18.
`
`
`BOOK
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Federal Parties respectfully oppose the Sovereign Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions.
`
`As explained below, the motion is contrary to the factual record and should be denied. The
`
`Federal Parties took extensive and reasonable measures to preserve and produce electronically
`
`stored information (“ESI”)—placing over 1,000 custodians under a litigation hold and producing
`
`nearly 700,000 documents. The Sovereign Plaintiffs focus on a limited set of ESI, mainly from
`
`the iPads and iPhones of two employees created around the time of the Gold King Mine release
`
`in July and August 2015. But to address concerns about the loss of that limited ESI, the Federal
`
`Parties proactively offered to waive privileges for the documents of these two employees, even
`
`though much of the ESI has been produced from other sources and any ESI that was lost was
`
`likely duplicative or immaterial. The Court should reject the Sovereign Plaintiffs’ attempt to
`
`characterize a limited loss of ESI—a minor occurrence considering the volume of ESI within a
`
`major federal agency—as an alleged government conspiracy.
`
`
`
`Based on their unsupported narrative, the Sovereign Plaintiffs seek sanctions to obtain a
`
`presumption that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) “intended to open the
`
`[Gold King] mine” on August 5, 2015, causing the Gold King Mine release as alleged in their
`
`complaints. Doc. 1179 at 27; Doc. 7 at ¶¶ 101-04; Doc. 339 at ¶¶ 95-98. But every witness who
`
`was at the mine that day consistently testified that there was no intent to open the mine; the goal
`
`was to assess next steps by removing loose material in front of and above the adit blockage. Exs.
`
`1-6. Lacking evidence for their theory, the Sovereign Plaintiffs’ now attempt to preclude
`
`evidence contesting their allegations and seek to obtain, through sanctions, favorable rulings on
`
`their negligence claim and the government’s Federal Tort Claims Act immunity argument when
`
`they cannot prevail on the merits.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`EPA took reasonable steps to preserve ESI during the five years after the release and
`
`through discovery, and it timely disclosed in good faith a potential loss of some ESI in discovery.
`
`While the Federal Parties regret the limited loss of ESI, there is no prejudice because the
`
`productions were voluminous and contained the most important ESI, such as the emails of the
`
`two employees in question, the core files for the site, and documents from four investigations
`
`into the release. These productions make the loss of any unique and material ESI highly unlikely.
`
`There is no evidence of intent to deprive any party of ESI. Sanctions are unwarranted based on
`
`the facts and the law; the Court should deny this motion, particularly in light of the reasonable
`
`accommodations made by the Federal Parties to account for the limited loss of ESI.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`The nature of the Sovereign Plaintiffs’ motion necessitates an accurate recounting of the
`
`facts. These facts show that the Federal Parties took extensive and reasonable steps to preserve
`
`ESI in what was one of the broadest preservation efforts in EPA’s history. When the Federal
`
`Parties learned that some ESI may have been lost, they investigated and timely disclosed those
`
`issues during fact discovery on October 23, 2020, after appropriate due diligence. And
`
`ultimately, much of the ESI the Sovereign Plaintiffs claim to be lost has been produced from
`
`other sources; the loss of any unique and material ESI is highly unlikely.
`
`I. EPA Took Reasonable Steps to Preserve ESI, and the Federal Parties Timely and
`Transparently Disclosed the Issues When They Learned ESI Was Potentially Lost.
`
`EPA first issued a litigation hold related to the Gold King Mine release on August 11,
`
`2015, six days after the release. Ex. 7 at 30:7-13. Since then, EPA has continually reviewed its
`
`preservation duties and expanded the hold as necessary; today over 1,000 custodians are subject
`
`to the litigation hold. Ex. 22 at ¶ 2. Where the ESI was particularly sensitive, EPA took
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 7 of 34
`
`additional preservation measures, as was the case with text messages on mobile devices and the
`
`ESI of key custodians, such as Hays Griswold and Steven Way.
`
`A. Measures to Preserve and Recover ESI on Mobile Devices.
`
`Shortly after the Gold King Mine release, EPA deemed the collection of ESI from cell
`
`phones a “very high priority” because the devices “can physically degrade over time.” Ex. 7 at
`
`77:15-22. After issuing the litigation hold on August 11, 2015, id. at 30:7-13, on November 23,
`
`2015, EPA sent additional instructions for the preservation of texts, see Doc. 1179-6. The
`
`instructions directed custodians to preserve “all messages related to Gold King” and provided
`
`step-by-step directions for three ways to preserve texts with contacts for technical assistance. Id.
`
`EPA sent the text preservation instructions to an estimated 718 custodians. Ex. 22 at ¶ 3.
`
`EPA followed up on the preservation of texts with custodians in April 2016. Ex. 22 at ¶
`
`4; Doc. 1179-7. Custodians had been instructed to manually preserve one text chain at a time.
`
`See Doc. 1179-6. As one custodian said, preservation was “a very labor intensive process” and
`
`added hours of work to existing duties. Ex. 13. This created a great burden for the agency, as
`
`EPA sought to preserve texts through this process on approximately 500 cell phones. Ex. 22 at ¶
`
`7. The scope of EPA’s attempt to preserve mobile devices was one of the broadest—if not the
`
`broadest—preservation efforts in the agency’s history. Id.
`
`EPA recognized the challenges and burdens of its manual text collection procedure and
`
`considered alternative methods to preserve texts. EPA initially considered purchasing off-the-
`
`shelf commercial software, but was concerned the software would not work due to the wide array
`
`of devices used by the agency. Id. at ¶ 8. Instead, after consulting with staff and counsel, EPA
`
`scheduled in-person meetings with key custodians, including Messrs. Griswold and Way, during
`
`which custodians preserved texts while technical staff and counsel were present to assist. Ex. 7 at
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 8 of 34
`
`71:13-72:23. At these same meetings, EPA also collected the key custodians’ phones and issued
`
`new ones to further preserve the ESI on mobile devices. Id. at 77:8-12. In total, EPA collected 78
`
`iPhones and preserved approximately 2,058 emails containing texts using the text message
`
`preservation process. Ex. 22 at ¶ 7.
`
`EPA held the in-person text preservation and cell phone exchange meetings in May 2016.
`
`Ex. 7 at 72:16-18. EPA scheduled Messrs. Griswold’s and Way’s meetings for May 11 and May
`
`16, 2016, respectively. Exs. 14; 15 (calendar invites). An EPA attorney and technical staff were
`
`available to assist at both meetings. Id. (Michael Boydston, EPA Region 8 attorney on invite).
`
`During his meeting, Mr. Griswold signed a form certifying compliance with the text preservation
`
`instructions and received a new iPhone. Ex. 16; Ex. 7 at 96:12-16. Technical staff closely
`
`supervised Mr. Griswold during the text preservation process because “he seemed to struggle
`
`with the technical aspects.” Ex. 7 at 73:1-16. Mr. Way similarly complied with the text message
`
`saving process. Id. at 69:15-20. Mr. Way did not receive a new cell phone due to his impending
`
`retirement and instead returned his iPhone and iPad to EPA. Exs. 17, 18; Ex. 7 at 129:2-5.
`
`EPA also created digital backups of Messrs. Griswold’s and Way’s iPhones. Ex. 7 at
`
`101:1-8; Ex. 22 at ¶ 6; Doc. 1179-4. The creation of a digital backup was a “new process” with
`
`which EPA was unfamiliar at the time. Ex. 7 at 103:13-17 (“We had never had to create backups
`
`of I phones [sic] before.”). Although Mr. Griswold’s iPhone backup is no longer accessible
`
`because the password to the backup was forgotten, id. at 103:21-104:14, the Federal Parties have
`
`produced the backup of Mr. Way’s iPhone, Doc. 1179-24.
`
`
`
`In June and July 2018, two years after collecting the mobile devices, EPA inventoried the
`
`status of the devices as the Federal Parties sought to negotiate a preservation plan in this case.
`
`Ex. 22 at ¶ 9; Doc. 43 at 2. Critically, EPA accessed Mr. Griswold’s iPhone and noted the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 9 of 34
`
`presence of a few texts. Ex. 22 at ¶ 9. EPA could not access Mr. Way’s iPhone because the
`
`password no longer worked, and EPA could not reset the password because the phone was
`
`disconnected from service. Id. Still, the ESI was preserved because EPA had access to the
`
`backup of Mr. Way’s iPhone. Id. Thus, during the summer of 2018, EPA did not know that any
`
`ESI had been lost from Messrs. Griswold’s and Way’s iPhones.
`
`
`
`Nor were the Federal Parties aware—in 2018 or now—that any unique ESI had been lost
`
`from the OSCs’ iPads. In July 2018, during EPA’s mobile device inventory, EPA reported it
`
`could not access Mr. Way’s iPad due to the lack of a password. Id. at ¶ 10. In October 2018, Mr.
`
`Griswold retired and returned his iPad after it had been reset to factory settings, Ex. 7 at 131:14-
`
`132:18, although counsel was not informed of this until March 2019, Ex. 22 at ¶ 11. The iPads,
`
`however, had been acquired only in July 2015, shortly before the release. Ex. 7 at 79:4-5. Mr.
`
`Way told counsel he only used the iPad for emails, which are preserved on a central server. Id. at
`
`79:4-5, 128:4-9; Ex. 23 at ¶ 15. Mr. Griswold told counsel that he only used his iPad for emails
`
`and photos, stating further that he saved his photos to his computer. Ex. 23 at ¶ 14. As a result,
`
`there is no known loss of ESI from the iPads despite the inability to access them.
`
`
`
`Concurrent with EPA’s mobile device inventory process in July 2018, the Federal Parties
`
`sought a preservation plan to alleviate the heavy burden of mobile device preservation on EPA,
`
`not, as the Sovereign Plaintiffs contend, because EPA “had destroyed or rendered inaccessible
`
`ESI on each of the OSC’s devices.” Doc. 1179 at 24. EPA had, at that time, collected 78 mobile
`
`devices. Ex. 22 at ¶ 7. The burden on EPA was potentially even more expansive, as the Special
`
`Master later noted that EPA “has hundreds, maybe thousands of employees who conceivably
`
`have something on their phone that might be relevant.” Ex. 19 at 22:4-7. See also Doc. 43 at 6.
`
`Further, nearly three years had passed since the Gold King Mine release, and the mobile devices
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 10 of 34
`
`were degrading. EPA’s inventory process found that some devices no longer turned on, or the
`
`original passwords no longer worked, such as on Mr. Way’s iPhone and iPad. Ex. 22 at ¶ 9.
`
`
`
`The Sovereign Plaintiffs remained nonresponsive to the Federal Parties’ entreaties until
`
`forced to discuss a preservation plan during a status conference on November 5, 2018. Ex. 19 at
`
`14:11-21. See also Doc. 43 at 3 n.2. Only then did the Sovereign Plaintiffs suggest that
`
`preservation could be limited to cell phones of “individuals that were on the ground at the mine
`
`during the relevant time period, which is late July, early August of 2015.” Ex. 19 at 22:4-7, 23:1-
`
`5. Based on this proposal, the parties agreed to preserve call logs and texts of “individuals who
`
`substantively participated in the 2014 and 2015 investigation of the Gold King Mine,” as
`
`reflected in the Preservation Order entered on December 6, 2018. Doc. 144 at 3.
`
`
`
`After the Court denied the Federal Parties’ motion to dismiss on February 25, 2019, Doc.
`
`164, EPA began to transfer its mobile devices to Leidos, the Department of Justice’s eDiscovery
`
`contractor, on or about March 19, 2019. Ex. 23 at ¶ 18. Leidos received the OSCs’ iPhones on
`
`April 12, 2019. Ex. 25 at ¶¶ 3, 8. Leidos accessed Mr. Griswold’s iPhone using an EPA-provided
`
`password, but, besides 209 photos, a second layer of encryption prevented the extraction of ESI
`
`for production. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. Leidos confirmed that Mr. Way’s iPhone could not be accessed due
`
`to the lack of a correct password, but Leidos accessed the backup copy of Mr. Way’s iPhone. Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 9-10. Leidos received the OSCs’ iPads in August 2019 and confirmed that Mr. Griswold’s
`
`had been reset, and Mr. Way’s could not be accessed absent a password. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13.
`
`
`
`After discovery commenced in August 2019, see Doc. 257, the Federal Parties considered
`
`the use of additional measures to extract ESI from Mr. Griswold’s iPhone and to unlock Mr.
`
`Way’s iPad. The Federal Parties’ initial focus was, however, on the production of ESI related to
`
`the federal investigations of the Gold King Mine release, which the Sovereign Plaintiffs stressed
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 11 of 34
`
`were key to their case and demanded to have before the end of 2019. Ex. 20 at 84:19-24; Doc
`
`382-1. The COVID-19 pandemic then affected operations beginning in March 2020, leading to
`
`an extension of all case management deadlines. Doc. 641. In July 2020, the Federal Parties
`
`consulted with vendors who specialize in password cracking. Ex. 23 at ¶ 19. The Federal Parties
`
`authorized vendors to use “brute force” applications to decrypt Mr. Griswold’s iPhone and
`
`unlock Mr. Way’s iPad. The applications ran for 13 weeks from September 4, 2020, to
`
`November 2, 2020, and made approximately 144,000,000,000 password attempts on Mr.
`
`Griswold’s iPhone and 13,000,000 password attempts on Mr. Way’s iPad. Ex. 25 at ¶¶ 6, 15. The
`
`attempts to access the devices cost $6,786, but they were not successful. Id.
`
`
`
`In December 2020, the Federal Parties also investigated the possibility that the ESI on
`
`Mr. Griswold’s original iPhone had been transferred to his replacement iPhone during the cell
`
`phone replacement process in May 2016. See Doc. 1179-9 at 1. The Federal Parties found no
`
`indication that any ESI had been transferred. Id. Moreover, during this investigation, the Federal
`
`Parties learned that Mr. Griswold’s replacement iPhone had been reset to factory settings in May
`
`2018 to correct a technical issue with the receipt of emails on that phone. Id.
`
`B. Measures to Preserve and Recover Mr. Griswold’s ESI.
`EPA took reasonable and proactive steps to preserve Mr. Griswold’s ESI. Mr. Griswold’s
`
`Gold King files were subject to a litigation hold by August 11, 2015. Ex. 22 at ¶ 2. Upon Mr.
`
`Griswold’s retirement in October 2018, EPA made focused efforts to ensure his materials were
`
`preserved, including by having counsel speak with Mr. Griswold and verifying visually that Mr.
`
`Griswold’s computer files were synced with his OneDrive account, a cloud storage system, for
`
`preservation. Id. at ¶ 11. On September 24, 2019, EPA also created a backup copy of the
`
`OneDrive. Id. at ¶ 12.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 12 of 34
`
`EPA discovered that some information from Mr. Griswold’s OneDrive was missing in
`
`August 2020. On February 4, 2020, EPA’s discovery support staff identified two Gold King
`
`related subfolders, one in a “MyProjectDocuments” folder and another in a “Pictures” folder, in
`
`the OneDrive for collection and production. Id. at ¶ 14. But when EPA attempted to collect these
`
`materials in the summer of 2020, EPA found that the file paths no longer worked. When EPA’s
`
`discovery support staff attempted to access the OneDrive on August 13, 2020, EPA learned that
`
`the OneDrive was no longer available, and the only ESI left was from the backup copy. Id. at ¶
`
`17. The backup copy contained 192 items from the “Pictures” folder, some of which are related
`
`to the Gold King Mine, but the Gold King subfolder within the “Pictures” folder was missing. Id.
`
`The backup did not contain any items in the “MyProjectDocuments” folder. Id.
`
`EPA performed an exhaustive search for the missing OneDrive folders. During this
`
`effort, EPA collected five devices that potentially contained a copy of the OneDrive: (1) the
`
`laptop assigned to Mr. Griswold, (2) a USB drive found near Mr. Griswold’s laptop, (3) two
`
`laptops assigned to an EPA IT contractor, and (4) a hard drive assigned to the same contractor.
`
`Id. at ¶ 21. EPA also searched its network drives and records management system, and EPA
`
`contacted Microsoft to determine if information could be recovered from its server. Id. Besides
`
`the 192 items in the “Pictures” folder from the OneDrive backup, no ESI was recovered. EPA’s
`
`investigation was unable to determine why the backup copy was incomplete. Ex. 22 at ¶ 20.
`
`C. The Federal Parties Timely Disclosed the Potential Loss of ESI.
`
`On October 23, 2020, the Federal Parties informed all parties of the inability to extract
`
`some ESI from Mr. Griswold’s iPhone and the potential loss of ESI from Messrs. Griswold’s and
`
`Way’s iPads and the OneDrive folders. Doc. 1179-4 at 2-3. The Federal Parties disclosed these
`
`issues at this time because the attempts to unlock the second layer of encryption on Mr.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 13 of 34
`
`Griswold’s iPhone and the password on Mr. Way’s iPad were increasingly unlikely to succeed,
`
`although the efforts continued until November 2, 2020. Ex. 25 at ¶¶ 6, 15. EPA also exhausted
`
`its efforts to recover information from Mr. Griswold’s OneDrive around the same time. Ex. 22 at
`
`¶ 18. Thus the timing of the disclosure was not part of a “pattern of concealment,” Doc. 1179 at
`
`23; rather, the Federal Parties made the disclosure upon completing due diligence.
`
`The timing of the disclosure gave other parties ample opportunity to investigate. As the
`
`Sovereign Plaintiffs admit, two months of fact discovery remained, and the depositions of
`
`Messrs. Griswold and Way had not been taken. Doc. 1179 at 23. Because of the timely
`
`disclosure, the Sovereign Plaintiffs were able to ask Messrs. Griswold and Way about their ESI
`
`after the Federal Parties agreed to extra time for their depositions. The Federal Parties also
`
`agreed to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about EPA’s preservation efforts.
`
`
`
`Critically, as stated in its October 23, 2020, letter, while the Federal Parties were candidly
`
`disclosing difficulties that arose during the collection of the OSCs’ mobile devices and Mr.
`
`Griswold’s OneDrive, the Federal Parties were not aware that any unique ESI had been lost.
`
`Doc. 1179-4 at 2-3. ESI on Mr. Griswold’s iPhone could not be extracted, but information on the
`
`phone could be viewed, and the phone was available for inspection under Rule 34(a). Id. at 2.
`
`Information prior to April 2016 could not be viewed, id., but EPA implemented a diligent text
`
`preservation process, and the Federal Parties had no reason to believe relevant texts prior to April
`
`2016 had been lost. Mr. Way’s iPhone could not be accessed, but the digital copy of his iPhone
`
`was accessible and produced. There was no reason at the time to believe that Mr. Way’s texts
`
`were not preserved by EPA’s text preservation process or by the digital copy of Mr. Way’s
`
`iPhone. Further, as noted, the Federal Parties have no knowledge of the loss of any unique ESI
`
`from the two OSCs’ iPads, given what the OSCs had told counsel regarding their iPad use. Ex.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 14 of 34
`
`23 ¶¶ 15, 16. Finally, regarding Mr. Griswold’s OneDrive folders, his photos of the mine had
`
`been produced from another source, and the documents Mr. Griswold had for the Gold King
`
`Mine were likely duplicative of what the Federal Parties had produced from Mr. Way’s ESI
`
`collection. Doc. 1179 at 3-4.
`
`
`
`The Federal Parties first learned that ESI was definitively lost—and then only for Messrs.
`
`Griswold’s and Way’s iPhone text messages—in 2021. First, on January 6, 2021, while
`
`preparing EPA’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness on ESI, the Federal Parties learned that Mr. Griswold’s
`
`iPhone could no longer be viewed; the iPhone now prevents any operations unless airplane mode
`
`is turned off. Ex. 25 at ¶ 7. Still, the Federal Parties were unaware of any relevant texts that Mr.
`
`Griswold did not save during EPA’s text preservation process until the Federal Parties obtained
`
`the Verizon text message details in preparing a response to the Sovereign Plaintiffs’ motion. See
`
`Ex. 23 at ¶ 21. Second, on February 17, 2021, the Federal Parties also learned that ESI had been
`
`lost from Mr. Way’s iPhone (despite production of a digital copy) when the Sovereign Plaintiffs
`
`introduced a text chain between Environmental Restoration’s (“ER”) project manager and Mr.
`
`Way at a deposition. Ex. 21; Doc. 1179-12. That text chain includes texts from Mr. Way in July
`
`and August 2015, Doc. 1179-12, but the backup of Mr. Way’s iPhone only contained texts from
`
`October 20, 2015, onward, Doc. 1179 at 6.
`
`II. The Federal Parties Have Produced Much of the Missing ESI from Other Sources,
`and the Loss of Unique and Material ESI Is Highly Unlikely.
`
`The Federal Parties expended considerable effort identifying substitute sources for the
`
`ESI that may have been lost. As a result of these efforts, the Federal Parties have determined that
`
`much of the ESI that was thought to be missing has likely been produced from other sources.
`
`Although some text messages from the OSCs are missing and have not been identified in
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 15 of 34
`
`productions, these texts were likely immaterial, and the Federal Parties’ production of
`
`contemporaneous statements from the OSCs’ emails, investigations into the Gold King Mine
`
`release, and EPA’s core files for the mine more than make up for this limited loss of ESI.
`
`A. Almost All ESI from Messrs. Griswold’s and Way’s Mobile Devices Has Been
`Produced and Any Lost Text Messages Are Unlikely to Be Material.
`
`Contrary to the Sovereign Plaintiffs’ assertions, the facts show that much of the ESI from
`
`Messrs. Griswold’s and Way’s iPhones and iPads has been produced from other sources:
`
`1. Mr. Way’s iPhone: The Federal Parties produced ESI from a digital copy of Mr. Way’s
`
`iPhone. Doc. 1179-24. Ex. 22 at ¶ 6. Although the copy does not include Mr. Way’s texts
`
`prior to October 20, 2015, Doc. 1179 at 6, Mr. Way’s texts with ER’s project manager
`
`have been produced by ER, and further efforts could be made to identify texts with other
`
`persons. Ex. 23 at ¶ 13.2 Indeed, the Federal Parties have determined—using service
`
`provider information—that more than half of Mr. Way’s texts (150 of 297) in July 2015
`
`were with ER or Weston Solutions. Id. at ¶ 28. Similarly, more than half of Mr. Way’s
`
`texts (155 of 297) in August 2015 were with ER, Weston Solutions, or federal employees
`
`from EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Bureau of Land Management. Id. at ¶ 29. The
`
`latter texts with federal employees were likely related to the response to the Gold King
`
`Mine release, which are not relevant to the issue of negligence, and the Sovereign
`
`Plaintiffs agreed need not be preserved. See Doc. 144 at ¶ B.7.g.
`
`2. Mr. Griswold’s iPhone: The Federal Parties extracted and produced all relevant photos
`
`from Mr. Griswold’s iPhone. Ex. 23 at ¶ 11. Although the remaining ESI could not be
`
`
`2 In this response, the Federal Parties identify numerous documents that show ESI has not been
`lost or that substitutes exist. To avoid inundating the Court, the Federal Parties identify the
`documents in a declaration by Bates number. The documents can be provided upon request.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 16 of 34
`
`extracted from the iPhone, the call log data has been obtained from the service provider,
`
`and some texts have been produced, including eight that Mr. Griswold saved as emails
`
`and others produced by ER involving Mr. Griswold. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13, 23. Moreover, Mr.
`
`Griswold did not use texts frequently; in the entire month of July 2015, he had only one
`
`text. Id. at Attachment A. In the month of August 2015, Mr. Griswold did not have any
`
`texts until one on August 5, 2015, and then no further texts until August 7, 2015. Id.
`
`3. Mr. Way’s iPad: The presence of relevant and unique ESI on Mr. Way’s iPad is highly
`
`unlikely. EPA acquired the iPad in July 2015, one month before the release. Ex. 7 at
`
`128:4-9. Mr. Way informed counsel that he used the iPad only for emails, which have
`
`been produced. Ex. 23 at ¶ 15; Ex. 8 at 349:20—351:7. The iPad did not send or receive
`
`texts. Ex. 23 at ¶ 22.
`
`4. Mr. Griswold’s iPad: The presence of relevant and unique ESI on Mr. Griswold’s iPad is
`
`extremely unlikely. EPA acquired the iPad in July 2015. Ex. 7 at 128:4-9. Mr. Griswold
`
`“didn’t know how to save” documents on the iPad and instead wrote emails to himself as
`
`memos. Ex. 9 at 508:9-18. Those emails have been produced. Ex. 23 at ¶ 9. Mr. Griswold
`
`used the iPad to photograph the Gold King Mine after the release and saved the photos to
`
`his computer. Ex. 9 at 298:15-299:24. The Federal Parties have produced photos from the
`
`EPA network folder “Gold King Mine Documentation\Pictures\ Hays – Gold King Mine”
`
`that are likely these photos; the folder was created on August 9, 2015, and held 29 photos
`
`dated August 7, 2015. Ex. 23 at ¶ 16. The iPad did not send or receive texts. Id. at ¶ 22.
`
`The only ESI from the mobile devices that does not appear to have been entirely available
`
`from another source are the text messages on the iPhones, but the existence of material and
`
`contemporaneous texts is unlikely because there is no cell phone reception at the Gold King
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00744-WJ-KK Document 334 Filed 06/01/21 Page 17 of 34
`
`Mine. Ex. 9 at 490:17-18. Further, service provider information from Verizon shows there were
`
`no texts between the OSCs until August 8, 2015, three days after the release. Ex. 23 at ¶ 25.
`
`Using the same service provider information, the Federal Parties located all but two texts
`
`between Me

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket