## Facts

- Judith B. Teague, a former Target employee, was terminated on February 17, 2003.
- Teague sued Target Corporation alleging wrongful discharge based on gender in violation of North Carolina public policy and asserted intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking lost wages and other damages.
- Target asserted, among other defenses, that Teague failed to mitigate damages after termination.
- After leaving Target, Teague conducted an online job search using a home computer, including researching openings, submitting online applications, and emailing prospective employers.
- The computer also contained emails related to her termination and her allegations of gender discrimination.
- Teague discarded the computer around August 2004, after retaining counsel and after filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC.
- Teague stated the computer had “crashed,” that a nonprofessional family member could not repair it, and that she did not take it to a professional to determine whether data could be recovered.
- In discovery, the remaining documentation of Teague’s job search consisted largely of unemployment work-search records, which Teague characterized as incomplete and which appeared inconsistent with other discovery responses.
- Target moved for spoliation sanctions, seeking dismissal of Teague’s back-pay claim based on the loss of the computer and its data.

## Issues

1. Whether Teague had a duty to preserve the home computer and its electronically stored information when she discarded it.
2. Whether the disposal was accompanied by a sufficiently culpable state of mind to support spoliation sanctions.
3. Whether the lost information was relevant to Target’s mitigation defense and Teague’s damages claims.
4. Whether dismissal of the back-pay claim was warranted, or whether a lesser sanction (such as an adverse-inference instruction) was appropriate.

## Decision

- The court held that Teague’s disposal of the home computer constituted spoliation of evidence.
- The court found the spoliation standard satisfied: control and duty to preserve, culpability, and relevance to the defense.
- The court denied Target’s request to dismiss the back-pay claim, treating dismissal as too severe without a clear showing of bad faith.
- The court granted sanctions in part by ordering an adverse-inference jury instruction regarding the destroyed computer evidence.
- The motion for sanctions was granted in part and denied in part.

## Legal Principles

- Spoliation is the destruction or material alteration of evidence that will be, or likely will be, used at trial.
- A duty to preserve arises when litigation is reasonably foreseeable; parties with control over evidence must preserve it once that duty attaches.
- An adverse-inference instruction may be imposed upon a showing that: (1) the party had control and an obligation to preserve, (2) the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and (3) the destroyed evidence was relevant to a claim or defense.
- “Culpable state of mind” for adverse-inference purposes may be satisfied by ordinary negligence, gross negligence, or knowing destruction; bad faith is not required for an adverse inference.
- Dismissal is a harsh sanction generally reserved for cases involving bad faith or similarly egregious conduct; absent such a showing, courts typically impose lesser sanctions aimed at curing prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Teague’s post-charge disposal of her computer—containing records central to her job search and Target’s mitigation defense—was spoliation, but it declined to dismiss her back-pay claim and instead ordered an adverse-inference instruction as a proportionate sanction.


Teague v. Target Corp., No. 3:06-CV-191, 2007 WL 1041191 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2007)