## Facts

- A products-liability suit alleged a Blitz plastic gasoline container exploded and caused fatal burns because it lacked a flame arrester.
- A pretrial discovery order required production of all documents relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses; neither side objected.
- Blitz tasked its corporate representative, Larry Chrisco, with identifying and collecting responsive documents with counsel.
- Blitz did not implement a litigation hold, did not coordinate with IT, did not conduct email keyword searches, and allowed routine deletion and overwriting of backups.
- The case proceeded to trial under a high-low agreement; the jury verdict fell near the low end, and the matter was closed.
- In later, separate litigation against Blitz, plaintiff’s counsel found internal documents not produced in this case, including:
  - A letter from a former CEO stating an expectation that the company would develop a device to eliminate flashback from a flame source.
  - An email titled “FW: Flame Arrester” discussing flame arrester use in the marine industry, sent to (and not produced by) the same corporate representative responsible for collection.
- Plaintiff moved to reopen the case and sought sanctions for discovery misconduct; the court held a show-cause hearing focused on the failure to produce undisputedly relevant documents.

## Issues

1. Whether post-trial discovery of previously unproduced, highly relevant internal documents justified reopening the closed case and disturbing the final judgment.
2. Whether Blitz’s preservation, search, and production failures warranted sanctions, and what sanctions were appropriate to remedy prejudice and enforce the court’s discovery order.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to reopen, maintaining the finality of the judgment notwithstanding discovery misconduct.
- The court denied Blitz’s motion for reconsideration.
- The court granted in part the motion for sanctions, finding serious discovery violations tied to deficient ESI preservation and search efforts.
- The court ordered Blitz to pay $250,000 in civil contempt sanctions to plaintiff.
- The court required Blitz, within 30 days, to provide a copy of the sanctions order to every plaintiff in every lawsuit against Blitz from the prior two years.
- The court imposed a contingent $500,000 purging sanction, tolled for 30 days and extinguished upon timely certification of compliance with the dissemination requirement.
- The court ordered that for five years Blitz must file the sanctions order with its first pleading or filing in any new case in which it appears as a party, while stating it did not direct how other courts should use the order.

## Legal Principles

- A party subject to a discovery order must conduct a reasonable inquiry and produce responsive, relevant information, including electronically stored information.
- Reasonable preservation commonly requires instituting a litigation hold and suspending routine deletion practices when litigation is pending and discovery obligations apply.
- Delegating ESI collection to personnel lacking technical competence, failing to involve IT, and failing to run targeted searches may support a finding that discovery efforts were unreasonable.
- Withholding highly relevant documents responsive to discovery requests can justify sanctions under the court’s inherent authority and contempt power to enforce compliance with its orders.
- Sanctions may be compensatory and deterrent, and may include non-monetary, forward-looking measures tailored to prevent recurrence and to inform other litigants and courts.

## Conclusion

The court refused to reopen a finalized products-liability judgment but sanctioned Blitz for serious discovery violations, imposing civil contempt damages and unusual disclosure-and-filing requirements designed to remedy prejudice and deter continued failures in ESI preservation and production.


Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:07-CV-372 (TJW), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20353 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011)