# John B. v. Goetz > Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · June 26, 2008 · 531 F.3d 448 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635475 ## Case - **Full name:** JOHN B.; Carrie G.; Joshua M.; Meagan A.; Erica A., by Their Next Friend, L.A.; Dustin P. by His Next Friend, Linda C.; Bayli S. by Her Next Friend, C.W.; James D. by His Next Friend, Susan H.; Elsie H. by Her Next Friend, Stacy Miller; Julian C. by His Next Friend, Shawn C.; Troy D. by His Next Friend, T.W.; Ray M. by His Next Friend, P.D.; Roscoe W. by His Next Friend, K.B.; William B. by His Next Friend, K.B.; Jacob R. by His Next Friend, Kim R.; Justin S. by His Next Friend, Diane P.; Estel W. by His Next Friend, E.D.; Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. M.D. GOETZ, Jr., Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration; Darin Gordon, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Tenn-Care; Viola P. Miller, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, Defendants-Appellants - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - **Decided:** June 26, 2008 - **Citations:** 531 F.3d 448; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13459; 2008 WL 2520487 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cole - **Judges:** Cole, Gibbons, Rogers - **Cited by:** 144 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635475 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that a party has a duty to preserve evidence for litigation “when that party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or ... should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.” - discussing the power to compel forensic imaging; noting that “forensic imaging is not uncommon in the course of civil discovery” and that “[a] party may choose on its own to preserve information through forensic imaging,” but cautioning that “compelled forensic imaging is not … - holding that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion to compel forensic imaging when less intrusive means of obtaining the desired evidence were available - recognizing that forensic imaging is a permissible discovery use but should be treated cautiously where the request is broader than the data’s relevance to the case warrants ## Opinion text R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in the majority’s thoughtful opinion and write separately only to recognize the district court’s efforts to resolve this extensive and complex proceeding, which has been made more difficult by Defendants’ repeated delays and the institutional inefficiencies that plague the TennCare system. This case has been pending for ten years. Since spring 2006 alone, the district court has overseen a discovery process that has included nine hearings and conferences, generating a record that *462 spans more than 1,700 transcript pages. After finding that Defendants repeatedly-violated their agreements set forth in the Consent Decree, breached their agreement with Plaintiffs regarding the dates for ESI discovery, and ignored the district court’s directions to provide ESI to Plaintiffs, the court understandably concluded that extraordinary action was necessary to preserve potentially relevant ESI. And I would ordinarily defer to the discretion of the district court, which has had the arduous job of managing this difficult case— along with another branch of TennCare litigation—for the past decade. This case is unique, however, in that the court’s order includes the forensic imaging of computers in the custody of individuals not party to this matter, and that the order may lead to confrontations between federal marshals and state officials. Under these circumstances, I agree with the majority that, without evidence that Defendants intentionally destroyed relevant ESI in the past or that they are affirmatively unwilling to preserve all relevant ESI in the future, the district court should first employ less intrusive means to address the perceived discovery violations. It is clear that the district court’s focus has been to assist the parties in forging a solution that would ensure that Tennessee’s children receive the benefits owed to them under the Consent Decree and federal law. Defendants’ continual noncompliance and acrimonious litigation practice has unfortunately steered this case away from 'such goal, with the costs borne by the judicial system and the citizens of Tennessee. The district court has thus far reserved the exercise of its wide discretion to hold Defendants in contempt or to impose monetary sanctions. If the district court resorts to such measures and Defendants nevertheless continue to disregard their undisputed duty to preserve and produce relevant ESI, the preservation order at issue in this case, in my view, may no longer be considered inappropriate. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635475. Public record. Not legal advice.