Saensinbandit v. Alaska Airlines

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
Tyonna Saensinbandit, )
)
Plaintiff, ) 3:18-cv-267 JWS
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
Alaska Airlines, Inc., ) [Re: Motion at docket 36]
)
Defendant. )
)
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 36 Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Defendant) filed a motion
requesting sanctions against Plaintiff Tyonna Saensinbandit for admitted destruction of
her Facebook account, which Defendant asserts is relevant evidence in this litigation.
Plaintiff responded at docket 49, indicating that the Facebook account had been
deactivated but not deleted and that Plaintiff has since provided the requested
information. Defendant replied at docket 55, maintaining its request for sanctions or,
alternatively, requesting that the court compel the production of additional withheld
Facebook material. Plaintiff, with the court’s permission, filed a sur-reply at docket 58.
Both parties request attorneys’ fees. Oral argument would not be of assistance to the
court.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a customer service agent on June 19,
2017. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment on November 17, 2017. Plaintiff,
Case 3:18-cv-00267-JWS Document 60 Filed 12/15/19 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
who is an African American, advances several claims against Defendant alleging that
her treatment as an employee and her termination were the result of racial
discrimination. Prior to filing suit, Plaintiff made a claim with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and received a right-to-sue letter.
Plaintiff’s complaint pleads numerous claims. Her complaint alleges a violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1981. It also set out claims for racial discrimination based on a hostile work
environment, termination of her employment, disparate treatment, and retaliation in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq. The complaint also includes a violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
In addition to the host of federal law claims, Plaintiff’s complaint includes several
state law claims for discrimination based on race in violation of AS 18.80.220(a)(1),
together with a claim of retaliation in violation of AS 18.80.220(a)(3). She pleads a
claim of discrimination based on disability in violation of AS 18.80.220(a)(1). Plaintiff
alleges a claim of retaliation based on her making a wage-and-hour complaint in
violation of state law. Plaintiff’s next claim alleges a violation of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing implied in her employment contract. Finally, Plaintiff advances a
claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
III. DISCUSSION
In May of 2019 Defendant sent discovery requests to Plaintiff, including two
discovery requests seeking information and documents related to Plaintiff’s Facebook
records. Specifically, Defendant made the following requests for production:
RFP No. 11: Please produce all emails including, but not limited to, emails
from your work and personal email addresses, . . . as well as any
messages, blog entries, social networking entries and profiles (including,
-2-
Case 3:18-cv-00267-JWS Document 60 Filed 12/15/19 Page 2 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
but not limited to Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, Snapchat, and
Instagram), and similar documents maintained on any computer used by
you (including, but not limited to, personal computers, laptops, iPads or
other tablets, and phones) at any time between hire and the present that
refer or relate to Alaska Airlines and/or any of its employees, or to any of
the matters alleged in your Complaint.
RFP No. 12: Please produce your complete Facebook activity log and a
complete printout of your Facebook timeline, as visible by you, from
June 19, 2017 to present.
In July, Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s requests. As to the first request, she
objected to the request on privacy, relevancy, and overbreadth grounds, but then
presumably indicated that she did not have responsive materials.1 As to the second
request, she objected on privacy and relevancy grounds, and then provided only the
first page of her Facebook page as it existed on May 30, 2019, with the last post being
made on May 28, 2019.2
Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s responses, noting the perceived deficiencies.
Plaintiff did not respond, and Defendant followed up on multiple occasions in July,
August, and September to no avail. In mid-September, Plaintiff provided supplemental
responses to other discovery requests, but not to the Facebook-related requests.3
Around the closing of discovery, on October 14, 2019, Defendant deposed Plaintiff.
During the deposition, Plaintiff indicated that she had deactivated her Facebook account
1“[H]owever, without waiving said objection, Plaintiff states that no additional emails
provided in this discovery or has been provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendant in discovery.”
Doc. 37-2 at p. 4.
2Doc. 37-2 at p. 4.
3Doc. 37-5.
-3-
Case 3:18-cv-00267-JWS Document 60 Filed 12/15/19 Page 3 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in May, shortly after Defendant had asked for the information.4 She stated that she had
conversations with a former employee, Jo Wayne Richards, about matters related to her
employment and Alaska Airlines, although she was not sure if the conversations were
through Facebook or not.5 She also indicated during her deposition that she could
retrieve the missing Facebook data.6
Shortly after the deposition, Defendant filed a request for sanctions based on
spoilation of evidence. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff admittedly deleted her
Facebook account after Defendant had made a request for such records and that
Plaintiff had not yet retrieved the information as promised in the deposition.
Plaintiff filed a response indicating that the account was deactivated but not
destroyed and that she had been able to access her account. Plaintiff’s counsel
indicated that after Plaintiff retrieved the account, she reviewed it herself and found only
one piece of relevant correspondence. She nonetheless agreed to turn over Plaintiff’s
complete Facebook activity log and timeline. She asks that the court find the motion
moot and award attorneys’ fees based on what she believes was an avoidable and
unwarranted request for sanctions.
In reply, Defendant argues that sanctions for spoilation are still appropriate, but
alternatively asks that the court compel Plaintiff to turn over all of her private Facebook
messages in response to RFP No. 11. Defendant argues the private Facebook
4Doc. 40-1 at p. 7.
5Doc. 40-1 at pp. 5, 8.
6Doc. 40-1 at p. 8.
-4-
Case 3:18-cv-00267-JWS Document 60 Filed 12/15/19 Page 4 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
messages are needed to confirm whether she had a conversation with Jo Wayne
Richards through Facebook. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s private messages
are relevant to her emotional distress claims in that they would show she has in fact
been engaging in social interactions or otherwise participating in everyday life activities.
After due consideration of the parties’ positions and arguments, the court
concludes that spoilation sanctions are unnecessary. While the court finds Plaintiff’s
deactivation of her Facebook account after discovery began troubling and
acknowledges that it has caused unnecessary motion practice and more delays, the
material has not, in fact, been lost or destroyed, and Plaintiff has since tuned over her
complete Facebook activity log and timeline as requested.
As for Defendant’s request that the court compel Plaintiff to turn over all of her
private Facebook messages for its review, the court declines to do so. The argument
that any and all emails and private messages sent to others, regardless of content, are
relevant to show social engagement and lack of distress is excessive to the needs of
the case. Such information is not crucial to resolving the emotional distress issue.
Defendant’s argument that all of her private messages should be turned over because
Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she had a Facebook conversation with Jo Wayne
Richards is not accurate. She testified that the conversation might have been through
Facebook, but she could not remember.7 Her declaration states that she has since
reviewed her correspondence and confirmed that her conversations with him were
7Doc. 40-1 at pp. 5, 8.
-5-
Case 3:18-cv-00267-JWS Document 60 Filed 12/15/19 Page 5 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
through email.8 Therefore, private Facebook messages would not reveal the relevant
conversation. Plaintiff is, however, directed to provide that email conversation to
Defendant if she has not already done so.
As for fees, much of this dispute could have been avoided with better
responsiveness and client management by Plaintiff’s counsel during the duration of
discovery this past summer. The Facebook information was not provided until after the
close of discovery, after the court became informed of the situation, and after Plaintiff
was threatened with the risk of sanctions. Furthermore, Defendant had attempted to
resolve the underlying discovery issue throughout the discovery period without
adequate response from Plaintiff’s counsel. Consequently, Plaintiff’s attorney is
directed to pay Defendant’s reasonable expenses incurred in filing the motion for
sanctions and the reply.9
IV. CONCLUSION
The motion at docket 36 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. While
sanctions are not warranted here, for the reasons stated above, Defendant is awarded
attorneys’ fees and expenses related to the filing of this motion, to be paid by Plaintiff’s
counsel. Defendant shall file its request for expenses with 14 days of this order.
DATED this 15th day of December 2019.
/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8Doc. 50 at p. 2.
9Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
-6-
Case 3:18-cv-00267-JWS Document 60 Filed 12/15/19 Page 6 of 6