NEW YORK STATE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, et al., on behalf of themselves, their members, and all others similarly situated, and Clarice Seegars, et al., on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Bernadette Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Jane Doe as the Administratrix of the Estate of John Doe on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Dellie Britt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Intervenors, v. Mario CUOMO, individually and as Governor of the State of New York, and Margarita Rosa, individually and as Commissioner of the Division of Human Rights of the Executive Department of New York State, George Pataki, individually and as Governor of the State of New York, and Edward Mercado, individually and as Commissioner of the Division of Human Rights of the Executive Department of New York State, Defendants No. 93 Civ. 7146(RLC)JCF United States District Court, S.D. New York July 14, 1998 Francis IV, James C., United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM AND ORDER *1 The plaintiffs[1] in this class action contend that the New York State Division of Human Rights (the “SDHR”) violated their rights by failing to adjudicate their claims of discrimination in a timely manner. New York State Governor George Pataki and former Governor Mario Cuomo, among others, are named as defendants. The plaintiffs now seek sanctions against defendant Cuomo for failure to preserve evidence consisting of: (1) the Executive Chamber computer database created during his term in office, and (2) monthly summary reports prepared for his review for the years 1986 through 1994. As a remedy for the destruction of this evidence the plaintiffs seek an order precluding the defendants from presenting evidence that Governor Cuomo took steps to reduce the time for processing complaints at the SDHR, that he made efforts to reduce the case backlog there, that there were budgetary or personnel constraints that prevented his taking action to ameliorate the problems at the SDHR, or that he did not know that delays at the SDHR jeopardized the property rights of the claimants. The plaintiffs further request monetary sanctions against Governor Pataki and his counsel for failing to promptly search for the records at issue and disclose that they had been destroyed. Finally, the plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs in connection with this motion. Background The original complaint in this action was filed on October 15, 1993. The New York State National Organization for Women (“NOW”) filed a motion to intervene and submitted a proposed intervenor complaint on August 17, 1994, and NOW's motion was subsequently granted. Governor Cuomo left office on January 1, 1995. On January 30, 1995, the plaintiffs served their first request for production of documents. Affidavit of David Raff dated March 20, 1998 (“Raff Aff.”), Exh. 4. Among other things, this request sought: 1. All reports, studies, analyses, and other documents prepared by defendants, or for defendants, or in any way related to defendants, which purport to study, analyze, or make recommendations as to any aspect of the Division [of Human Rights] and is [sic] operations and budget. 1 6. All documents which discuss or refer to funding or staffing at the Division. This request expressly includes all documents in the possession of any executive department, division, agency, bureau, or other government entity within the statutory control of Cuomo, including, but not limited to, the Division of the Budget. 7. All documents which refer to the Division not having adequate staffing or sufficient funding. A series of discovery disputes, rulings, and conferences ensued. On November 12, 1997, defendants' counsel produced the Executive Chamber Manual which purportedly revealed that the Cuomo administration had maintained a computer database that included letters and reports sent to the Governor, out-going letters, internal memoranda, monthly summary reports, and electronic mail. Raff Aff., ¶¶ 26–28. According to a computer advisor in the Executive Chamber, the central database was in fact much more limited. Affidavit of Thomas W. Irvin dated April 24, 1998 (“Irvin Aff.”), ¶ 9. In any event, at the end of the Cuomo administration, the Executive Chamber databases, along with information saved by individual employees on personal computers, were deleted. Irvin Aff., ¶¶ 15–16. *2 Among the paper documents generated by the Cuomo administration were monthly summary reports. These reports included information generated by various agencies including the SDHR and were submitted to the Governor for his review. Copies were also sent to seven other state officials. Raff Aff., ¶¶ 31–32 & Exh. 10. After reviewing the reports, the Governor would send them to an assistant with comments and questions. Raff Aff., ¶ 33. No copies of the summary reports for the period 1986–1994 have been located, and it is believed that they no longer exist. Raff Aff., ¶¶ 32–33; Affidavit of June Duffy dated April 29, 1998 (“Duffy Aff.”), ¶ 7 & Exh. A. Discussion The threshold question here is whether the defendants had an obligation to preserve evidence and, if so, when that obligation arose. Service of a complaint puts the receiving party on notice that it is required to preserve evidence that may be relevant to the claims asserted. See Turner v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., 142 F.R.D. 68, 73 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Computer Associates International, Inc. v. American Fundware, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 166, 169 (D.Colo.1990). In this case, then, the defendants were notified of the plaintiffs' specific claims no later than August 1994 when NOW submitted its proposed intervenor complaint. It is therefore immaterial that the first document requests were not served until after the records were apparently destroyed at the end of the Cuomo administration. The preservation obligation had arisen earlier.[2] Defendants' counsel treated that obligation cavalierly. Counsel have a duty to advise their client of pending litigation and of the requirement to preserve potentially relevant evidence. Turner, 142 F.R.D. at 73. However, prior to receipt of the plaintiffs' document requests, counsel never instructed Governor Cuomo to retain any documents or electronic data. Duffy Aff., ¶ 5. Indeed, it was not until 1996 that counsel in this action contacted defendant Cuomo directly. Duffy Aff., ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the defendants suggest that because of the volume of litigation involving a sitting governor, Mr. Cuomo cannot be charged with knowledge of each pending case and the corresponding obligations. Affidavit of Mario M. Cuomo dated April 24, 1998 (“Cuomo Aff.”), ¶¶ 3–4; Affidavit of Elizabeth Moore dated April 27, 1998 (“Moore Aff.”), ¶¶ 2–3. This argument is unpersuasive. If responsibility for handling such matters is delegated to the Governor's legal staff and to the Office of the State Attorney General, the Governor is ultimately accountable for the conduct of those entities. Whether sanctions are warranted, however, depends on two factors: whether the destruction of the evidence was accomplished in bad faith and whether the party seeking the evidence was substantially prejudiced by its loss. There has been no showing here that the defendants deleted computer databases or destroyed monthly summary reports in order to impede this litigation. To the contrary, neither the Executive Chamber database nor the reports were specific to the issues raised in this case. Their destruction evidently occurred as part of a general purging of records at the conclusion of Governor Cuomo's term and the beginning of Governor Pataki's. While this constituted a negligent breach of the duty to preserve evidence, it was hardly intentional. *3 The plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by the loss of the records. See Turner, 142 F.R.D. at 77 (moving party must show content of destroyed evidence before adverse inference can be drawn). With respect to the computer database, the plaintiffs argue only that they could have used computerized search devices to locate relevant documents. Raff Aff., ¶ 30. But they fail to identify with any specificity what information they would have been reasonably likely to find. In essence, they argue that the defendants' conduct deprived them of a pond in which they would like to have gone on a fishing expedition. That is not a showing of prejudice. The issue is somewhat closer with respect to the monthly summary reports. These reports routinely included a section concerning the SDHR and were directed to Governor Cuomo for his review. However, the plaintiffs have obtained voluminous other documents and have had a full opportunity to take the deposition both of Governor Cuomo and of the Commissioner of the SDHR who provided the information that was summarized for him. By these means, the plaintiffs have obtained substantial evidence about Governor Cuomo's awareness of the problems plaguing the SDHR. Raff Aff., ¶ 34. Thus, the monthly summary reports would have been largely cumulative. Moreover, the plaintiffs could have deposed other former state officials who received the reports in order to try to track down remaining copies, but they apparently chose not to do so. Since the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate prejudice to their case or bad faith by the defendants, then, they are not entitled to any sanction for the loss of the records, much less the sweeping preclusion order they have requested. The plaintiffs have also failed to show that they were prejudiced by any delay by Governor Pataki or his counsel in advising them that this evidence could not be located. They speculate that had they known earlier of the loss of the computer database they might have been able to enlist computer experts to recover the information by undeleting it. Raff Aff., ¶ 43. But the plaintiffs provide no expert testimony describing in detail what would have been required. Likewise, the plaintiffs argue that had they known of the loss of the monthly summary reports they could have tried to locate these documents through former employees whose memories were still fresh. Raff Aff., ¶ 44. But the plaintiffs have never sought out such employees to test their current memories. Accordingly, they are not entitled to sanctions for the delay in disclosing the destruction of the records. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs' application for sanctions for the destruction of evidence is denied. Footnotes [1] As used here, the term “plaintiffs” refers to the individual plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and to the New York State National Organization for Women, which represents its members in this action. [2] The plaintiffs also argue that the defendants had certain obligations under state law to retain records. However, any state requirements are irrelevant to the current dispute. The laws and regulations of other entities neither expand nor contract the discovery obligations that attach to a federal court proceeding. See Turner, 142 F.R.D. at 73 (federal agency regulations permitting destruction of records do not excuse spoliation in violation of discovery obligations).