Jane Powers HUGGINS t/a SADISCO of Maryland, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Defendant Civil Action No. AW-07-825 United States District Court, D. Maryland Signed August 24, 2010 Counsel Linda S. Woolf, Derek McIntosh Stikeleather, Kristen Nichole Nesbitt, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Baltimore, MD, Mary M. Dillon, Matthew Woodruff Sawchak, Thomas Hamilton Segars, Ellis and Winters LLP, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. Shelley Lynn Johnson, Office of Law, Upper Marlboro, MD, for Defendant. Conley, William M., United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER *1 In the Order of July 9, 2010 the Court held in abeyance Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence. See Document No. 263. The Court sought clarification about Alfonso Cornish's electronic documents. In paragraphs 6–10 the Court stated 6. That the Court seeks clarification concerning Mr. Cornish's electronic documents; 7. That, based upon a review of the parties' briefs, it appears the e-mails produced to date were obtained from Mr. Cornish's secretaries' vaulted/stored e-mails, specifically Imelda Abella and Fariba Kassiri; 8. That, what remains unclear is whether the County searched for electronic documents from the e-mail boxes of Alfonso Cornish, Joanne Carter and Cindy Blackwell (the latter two were assistants of Mr. Cornish) for the period of March 1, 2004 through June 1, 2004; 9. That, it is also unclear, whether the e-mails of Cornish, Carter and Blackwell for the period of March 1, 2004 through June 1, 2004 are presently archived on the County's server(s). William Addis testified that archived e-mails are saved forever but that the system was installed by the County three or four years ago. See Def.'s Opp'n, Ex. 20 (Addis Dep. 18:5–22). However, in the letter of October 28, 2008 Ms. Johnson indicated a search of all email accounts were conducted in April/May 2006. See id., Ex. 4 (Letter of Johnson, Esq. to Segars, Esq. of 10/28/08 at 1). The Court notes, according to Ms. Johnson, the Office of the County Executive was not a focus of this search; and 10. That by July 27, 2010 Defendant must submit an affidavit to the Court and Plaintiff explaining whether the e-mail boxes of Alfonso Cornish, Joanne Carter and Cindy Blackwell are presently archived on the County's server(s). If so, Defendant must verify that these e-mail boxes were searched for responsive documents for the period of March 1, 2004 to June 1, 2004. If responsive documents have been produced, please identify the responsive documents by Bates numbers. If responsive documents have not been produced, Defendant must serve them on Plaintiff as soon as possible. However, if the e-mail boxes of Alfonso Cornish, Joanne Carter and Cindy Blackwell are not presently archived, the affiant must explain why these electronic documents were not permanently saved. Document No. 263 at 3-4. On July 26, 2010 Defendant produced for the Court's consideration an affidavit of Ms. Tanya E. Gott, Director of the Office of Information Technology and Communications (“OITC”) for Prince George's County, Maryland. Paragraphs 2–4 of this affidavit state 2. On or about November 6, 2009, the Office of Information Technology and Communications received a request from the Office of Law to conduct a search of the Prince George's County archived emails and produce all emails sent or received from Alfonso Cornish and/or his assistants, Cindy Blackwell, Joanne Carter, and Fariba Kassiri from March 1, 2004 to June 1, 2004. 3. The emails for Mr. Cornish, Ms. Blackwell, Ms. Carter and Ms. Kassiri are presently archived in the County's server(s) and are accessible. *2 4. On November 6, 2009, at approximately 2:16 p.m. the requested search was conducted by Mr. William Addis, Enterprise Security Manager for Prince George's County, Maryland. Document No. 264, Ex. 1 (Gott Aff. ¶¶ 2-4). The remainder of Ms. Gott's affidavit describes the number of documents located as a result of the November 6, 2009 search, a request for another search, conducting the latter search on March 15, 2010, and locating and producing these additional documents. Nowhere in Ms. Gott's affidavit did she address the issue raised by the Court's July 9, 2010 Order, namely, “whether the e-mail boxes of Alfonso Cornish, Joanne Carter and Cindy Blackwell are presently archived on the County's server(s).” Document No. 263 ¶ 10 (emphasis added). The Court found Ms. Gott's affidavit most unhelpful in obtaining clarification concerning Mr. Cornish's electronic documents. Three days later, on July 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's Filing of July 26, 2010. See Document No. 265. Plaintiff makes a few observations concerning Ms. Gott's affidavit. • Exhibit 1 to Ms. Gott's affidavit confirms that the County has been reduced to searching for Mr. Cornish's, Ms. Carter's, and Ms. Blackwell's names in other people's e-mail boxes. This point confirms that the witnesses' own e-mail accounts no longer exist. • [T]he low number of e-mails that the County has produced from these witnesses shows that the County does not have the witnesses' own e-mail accounts. * * * • From an entire three-month period ... the County produced no more than 233 e-mails, including e-mails to and from Mr. Cornish and four assistants. This grand total, encompassing five people and three months, resembles the number of e-mails that Mr. Cornish testified that he received in one average day. Document No. 265 at 4-5. During his November 18, 2008 deposition the following exchange occurred between Plaintiff's counsel and Alfonso Cornish. Q: Can you tell me how heavy or not heavy a user of e-mail you were in your work with DER when you were at the county? A: Well, I was—I was a very heavy user of e-mail. I—I would receive, you know, sometimes 2, 3, 400 e-mails a day. Document No. 256, Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 26:1–6). In the Order of February 26, 2010 the Court granted Plaintiff's Letter Motion to Compel Production of Documents Relevant to SADISCO's Claim under Monell against Prince George's County. The Court directed Defendant to “conduct a complete search of all e-mails received by Alfonso Cornish, received on Mr. Cornish's behalf, sent by Mr. Cornish, or sent on Mr. Cornish's behalf from the period of March 1, 2004 through June 1, 2004[.]” Document No. 244 ¶ 2. The period of March 1, 2004 through June 1, 2004 consists of 90 calendar days or 63 work days. The 716 pages total produced by Defendant is far below the volume of e-mails Mr. Cornish testified to receiving daily. Therefore the Court sought clarification concerning Mr. Cornish's electronic documents. Only after Plaintiff questioned Ms. Gott's affidavit did Defendant finallyaddress the specific issue raised by the Court. On August 2, 2010 Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's July 26, 2010 Correspondence. See Document No. 267. Defendant attached nine exhibits to its Reply. The first exhibit is an affidavit from William Addis, an employee of OITC. The affidavit states in pertinent part *3 2. On March 10, 2010, the Office of Information Technology and Communications received a request from the Office of Law to conduct a search of the email boxes of Alfonso Cornish and his assistants and produce all emails from March 1, 2004 to June 1, 2004. 3. In response to the request, I attempted to access the email box of Mr. Alfonso Cornish, Cindy Blackwell, Joanne Carter, and Fariba Kassiri. 4. I found that, pursuant to Prince George's County practice, the Department of Human Resources Management notifies Network Services, a department within the Office of Information Technology, that the employee/user is no longer on payroll. Network Services disables the e-mail mailbox preventing any incoming or outgoing emails from the mailbox and the mailbox is deleted after six (6) months. 5. Mr. Cornish left employment on March 17, 2006 and Ms. Kassiri left employment on November 27, 2004. 6. Mr. Cornish's and Ms. Kassiri's email boxes were deleted pursuant to the County's policy as described previously herein. 7. I was not the County employee that received the notification regarding Mr. Cornish's and Ms. Kassiri's employment status and did not disable or delete the email boxes. 8. In [an] effort to comply with the request and obtain emails to and from Mr. Cornish and his assistants for the time frame of March 1, 2004 to June 1, 2004, I searched the email boxes of those individuals who were identified in the Litigation Hold Request issued by the Office of Law dated March 10, 2008. * * * 10. The search resulted in 128 documents totaling 549 pages. 11. The search results were forwarded to the Office of Law. 12. The fact that Mr. Cornish's and Ms. Kassiri's email boxes were deleted was not provided to the Office of Law with the production of the documents. Document No. 267, Ex. 1 (Addis Aff. ¶¶ 2-8, 10–12). Defendant provides no explanation for failing to disclose these answers when it filed Ms. Gott's affidavit on July 26, 2010. Ms. Gott's affidavit is completely unresponsive to the Court's inquiry. In contrast Mr. Addis's affidavit specifically addresses the matter raised by the Court. Even though the Court has finally received the answer to its question (only after Plaintiff challenged Ms. Gott's affidavit), the Court is concerned about this extremely tardy disclosure regarding the status of Mr. Cornish's e-mail box. In the letter motion of September 28, 2008 Plaintiff raised concerns about the lack of production of documents and identified Alfonso Cornish as an example. See Document No. 106 at 3. In response the Court issued the Order of October 7, 2008 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Letter Motion. The Court directed Defendant to produce “any responsive, non-privileged electronic and non-electronic documents created or received by Alfonso Cornish....” Document No. 117. Three days later Defendant's counsel sent a letter to the Court. The second to the last paragraph states As to Mr. Al Cornish's file, Mr. Cornish has not been an employee of the County for at least three years. A thorough search of the County Executive Office has ... not produced any documents responsive to Plaintiff's document request. Document No. 256, Ex. 19 (Letter from Johnson, Esq. to Judge Connelly of 10/10/08). It is noteworthy that this letter makes no reference to Mr. Cornish's electronic documents. *4 Pursuant to the Court's Order of October 7, 2008, Defendant's counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff's counsel. The Court notes the October 28, 2008 correspondence does not specifically address Mr. Cornish's electronic documents. See Document No. 259, Ex. 4 (Letter from Johnson, Esq. to Segars, Esq. of 10/28/08). After Judge Williams lifted the stay of discovery regarding Monell on August 20, 2009, see Document No. 231, on September 28, 2009 Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendant's counsel renewing Plaintiff's request that Defendant produce Alfonso Cornish's hard copy and/or electronic documents or files that relate to SADISCO. See Document No. 259, Ex. 5 (Letter from Woolf, Esq. to Johnson, Esq. of 9/8/09 at 1). By November 2, 2009 Plaintiff had not received a response to the September 28, 2009 letter and inquired about Defendant's efforts to undertake additional searches and supplement its document production. See id., Ex. 6 (Letter from Nesbitt, Esq. to Johnson, Esq. of 11/2/09 at 2). Although Defendant ultimately produced some documents, Plaintiff found the production lacking and moved to compel production on January 29, 2010. See Document No. 239. On February 4, 2010 Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's letter motion to compel. In the second paragraph of the four page letter response, Defendant's counsel wrote As to Plaintiff's argument that the emails did not come from Mr. Cornish's email account, this fact shows the Court that Defendant did not make any misrepresentation to the Court regarding Mr. Cornish's file. These emails were not retrieved from any hard file. As Defendant has stated previously, a search of the Executive Office has yielded no file regarding SADISCO of Maryland. The files that Mr. Cornish may have had in his possession during his employment can not be located. The emails produced were the result of searching through Mr. Cornish's secretaries vaulted/stored emails. Document No. 240 at 1-2. It appears to the Court, as early as February 4, 2010 and likely before then, Defendant knew it did not have archived on its servers Mr. Cornish's e-mail box. Defendant however did not articulate this fact to Plaintiff and neither to the Court, particularly when the Court specifically asked “whether the e-mail boxes of Alfonso Cornish, Joanne Carter and Cindy Blackwell are presently archived on the County's server(s).” Order of July 9, 2010 ¶ 10. In response to the Court's Order of July 9, 2010 Defendant submitted the affidavit of Ms. Gott. That affidavit failed to answer the specific question posed by the Court. Moreover, when the Court granted Plaintiff's letter motion to compel production of documents relevant to SADISCO's claim under Monell against Prince George's County, besides directing Defendant to conduct a complete search of all e-mails received by or on behalf or sent by or on behalf of Mr. Cornish, the Court noted That at a deposition on March 27, 2009 William Addis testified that over the past two to three years an archive e-mail system has been installed. Purportedly e-mails moved to the archive system are saved forever. Mr. Addis testified that such e-mails are saved forever “[a]t this point in time, yes.” In conducting the search for e-mails sent or received by Mr. Cornish, if Defendant is unable to locate relevant e-mails to or from Mr. Cornish for the period of March 1, 2004 to June 1, 2004, Defendant must submit a sworn affidavit from an individual knowledgeable about the e-mail system explaining why e-mails for the period identified above cannot be retrieved[.] *5 Order of February 26, 2010 [Document No. 244] ¶ 4 (emphasis added). The Court has reviewed the 167 pages Defendant produced to Plaintiff resulting from a search conducted by OITC on March 15, 2010. SeeDocument No. 256, Ex. 36. None of the pages produced are relevant to this litigation. The vast majority of the 167 pages concern the Livable Communities Initiative (“LCI”). Defendant thus should have submitted an affidavit explaining why relevant e-mails for the period of March 1, 2004 to June 1, 2004 cannot be retrieved. Defendant thus had an opportunity, well before August 6, 2010, to disclose that Mr. Cornish's e-mail box had been deleted and therefore Defendant is limited to retrieving any emails to or from Mr. Cornish from present County employees. In addition, Defendant designated Erv Beckert as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding, among other subjects, the preservation of electronic and paper documents. During the April 30, 2010 deposition the following exchange occurred between Plaintiff's counsel and Mr. Beckert. Q: Is Mr. Cornish's e-mail account still available to the County? A: I spoke to Mr. Addis about the system that we have in place and— Q: I'm just asking a yes or no question. Is Mr. Cornish's e-mail account still available to the County? A: Based upon my discussion with Mr. Addis, it should still be available, because the system did do daily incremental backups, as I said, and weekly backups, which they were able to utilize. Document No. 256, Ex. 11 (April 30, 2010 Beckert Dep. 380:10–20). A straightforward question was asked—“Is Mr. Cornish's e-mail account still available to the County?” yet Defendant's designee could not provide a straightforward answer. Q: How long are [e-mails] stored and saved for? That's my question. A: [Mr. Addis] did not tell me how long. But in our discussions there was no indication that for that 10-year time span that we've had Microsoft Exchange server in place that any of those backups would not be available. Id., Ex. 11 (April 30, 2010 Beckert Dep. 382:6–12). Plaintiff is thus left with the impression that Defendant has Mr. Cornish's e-mail box presently archived. Q: And those results were all—those results included all of the e-mails from Mr. Cornish that are currently within the County's possession; is that right? A: Ms. Johnson advised me on the 28th that every e-mail that was available from Mr. Cornish was provided; was searched for and was provided. Q: And what about e-mails of Mr. Cornish that may not have been available? A: Such as— Q: Were there e-mails of Mr. Cornish that were not available? A: As Mr. Addis advised [me] today, there was the possibility that if [Mr. Cornish] had seen an e-mail that day and received it and deleted it from his system without forwarding it to anybody else, it would not have been part of the incremental backup. Id., Ex. 11 (April 30, 2010 Beckert Dep. 387:17–388:11). Again, Defendant gives the impression that Mr. Cornish's e-mails, with the exception of a specific subset, are available on the server and retrievable. In short, on the issue of Mr. Cornish's e-mails, Defendant has wasted this Court's time and has caused Plaintiff to expend additional funds, unnecessarily, to pursue this issue. Defendant knew, on November 6, 2009when Mr. Addis searched for e-mails sent to or received from Mr. Cornish and/or his assistants, Cindy Blackwell, Joanne Carter, and Fariba Kassiri from March 1, 2004 to June 1, 2004, that Mr. Cornish's e-mail box was not archived on Defendant's server(s). *6 The guiding principle of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 is “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” This litigation has been far from speedy or inexpensive. Because Defendant was not forthright about the status of Mr. Cornish's e-mails/e-mail boxes, causing Plaintiff to spend additional time and resources on this topic between November 7, 2009 (the day after Mr. Addis knew Mr. Cornish's e-mail box was not archived) and August 6, 2010 (the day Defendant filed its Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's July 26, 2010 Correspondence) the Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to pay $2,000.00 to Plaintiff. This amount does not, by any means, reasonably compensate Plaintiff for the fees charged by counsel on this issue but the Court hopes this monetary sanction is a reminder to both parties of the importance of complete, prompt and direct disclosure of discovery information and documents. The Court now turns its attention to the substantive dispute. Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence: In the first paragraph of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Filing of July 26, 2010, Plaintiff states Plaintiff Jane Power Huggins, t/a SADISCO of Maryland (“SADISCO”) has moved for sanctions for the County's spoliation of the paper and electronic files of Mr. Alfonso Cornish. (May 17, 2010, SADISCO's Mot. for Sanctions [Dkt. No. 256] ). Mr. Cornish was the official in the County Executive's office who approved the padlocking of SADISCO and denied SADISCO's request to promptly reopen. Document No. 265 at 1. The evidence does not support Plaintiff's assertion regarding Mr. Cornish's role in approving the padlocking of SADISCO's facility. During the November 18, 2008 deposition of Alfonso Cornish, the following colloquies occurred between Plaintiff's counsel and Mr. Cornish. Q: How did you first become aware of SADISCO? A: As I've thought about it, the only thing that I recall is that there was a situation related to them operating improperly. And—and I—and this is—it's very, very sketchy, but we had padlocked the gates to the facility because they were operating without a permit. And there were some pictures that they brought to me to show me, the pictures of the—there was like a trailer, I think, on the facility; and the condition of the—the trailer was in a deteriorating state, and we had not issued them a use-and-occupancy permit to utilize that facility. That's—that's kind of my recollections as I've thought about it. Q: Mr. Cornish, when you say “they brought me pictures,” who's the “they” you're referring to? A: I—I—specifically, I—I cannot say because I don't—I don't remember. I just remember receiving these—these pictures and having a discussion about that. Q: Did you receive them from some county employees? A: Yes. Q: As opposed to— A: From the Department of—DER. Q: From DER? A: Yes. Document No. 256, Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 21:17–22:19). Q: Mr. Cornish, when did you first become aware of the possibility of padlocking or shutting down SADISCO's business? A: It was—it was after the fact, after it had occurred. And I—and I think that at that point, it—there must have been issues surrounding it, because that would be the only reason why they would have gotten me involved in it. Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 33:10–17). Q: And—and was the padlocking of SADISCO in accordance with county policy? A: It was my—it was my understanding that it was. Q: What's your understanding of who decided to padlock the SADISCO's facility? A: I—I believe it was Mr. Matzen. Q: Is it your understanding that he alone or he himself made that decision? A: No, a—a decision like that is never made alone. It would have—it would have been in concert with the director of the department in consultation with the—the County Attorney's Office, because we—we work very closely with them. Id., Ex.2 (Cornish Dep. 36:23–37:12). *7 Q: Would you describe your own involvement, then, as a—as an involvement of reviewing the decision? A: That is correct. Q: Was anyone in the County Executive's Office, other than yourself, involved in reviewing the decision? A: No, I was the only one. Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 42:3–10). It is clear from Mr. Cornish's testimony that he had no role in the decisionto padlock SADISCO's facility. Mr. Cornish answered questions about his role in relation to the Department of Environmental Resources. Q: Would it be correct to say that you oversaw the Department of Environmental Resources? A: Yes. Q: Was Donna Wilson one of the people you worked with? A: Yes. Q: And what was your working connection with her? A: Donna was the department director, and she reported—she reported to me. * * * Q: Did you have a working connection with Tom Matzen? A: Yes. Q: And—and what was the working relationship between you and him? A: Well, Tom was an associate and—and—I—I may have the title wrong, but he was an associate director in the Department of Environmental Resources. And he reported to Ms. Wilson. Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 16:16–17:1, 18:13–22). Donna Wilson was the Director of the Department of Environmental Resources (“DER”) when the decision was made to padlock SADISCO's facility. During her March 30, 2010 deposition Ms. Wilson testified that Al Cornish, as the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (“DCAO”), whose responsibilities included DER, “did not have any real dealings with the day-to-day operation” of DER. Document No. 259, Ex. 11 (Wilson Dep. 29:16–17). Ms. Wilson explained that she did not have to obtain “approval” from Mr. Cornish in performing her duties as director. In response to a question Ms. Wilson explained the essence of Mr. Cornish's position. A: I guess I would have to ask you when you say “oversee,” he did not have—I didn't report to him or have to ask him if I could do certain things in the agency, if that's what we are saying by oversee. The DCAO's position was to serve as a funnel of information so that the County Executive didn't have every department head reporting directly to him. Id., Ex. 11 (Wilson Dep. 40:18–41:3). Ms. Wilson does not recall any employee seeking her approval before padlocking SADISCO's facility. Q: Was your approval sought for the decision to padlock SADISCO's facility? A: I don't recall being asked. Q: Is it possible that you were? A: It's possible. Q: Do you know if Mr. Cornish was asked to approve the padlocking of SADISCO's facility? A: I don't know. Q: Would that have been unusual for that to percolate up to the County Executive? A: It would have been unusual. Id., Ex. 11 (Wilson Dep. 106:12–22). Cynthia Barry is a Code Enforcement Officer of DER, in the Community Standards Division. She has a different recollection about Ms. Wilson's knowledge and involvement with SADISCO's property. Q: Would you have needed—or did you need Ms. Wilson's approval to padlock the property? A: Did I need her approval? No. I would have ran [sic] it by Tom Matzen, but because of all the meetings on this and because of probably Public Works and the right-of-way and because of the contamination, she was involved in it. And it says [on Deposition Exhibit 31, an e-mail from Matzen to Barry] frantic call from Mr. Taub, so I'm sure that Mr. Matzen ran it through her as the Director. So yes, I didn't proceed without her. *8 * * * Q: Okay. Do you know what she was told? A: I don't recall ever meeting with her. I believe Mr—well, Mr. Matzen met with her. What he told her, I really don't know, but I do know copies of the whole file were sent up for her to review. Q: Before the padlocking? A: Yes, I believe. Q: Was this the first time she was directly involved in dealing with Sadisco issues? Was it in connection with— A: I don't think so. I think that she had been involved before. Mr. Matzen had met with her. I think when the Health Department got involved, and the contamination issue, and I'm sure that he kept her aware, that he had discussed it with her. Id., Ex. 25 (Barry Dep. 201:20–202:7, 18–203:10). Earlier during this deposition Ms. Barry was questioned about the 10-day notice she issued to SADISCO warning the company that its operation violated County law. Q: Why didn't Mr. DeHan's statement that he had granted an extension until July prevent you from sending the 10-day letter? A: Because his was a grading issue only. This was a use issue of all of the property, and the grading issue really didn't make that much of a difference since the property was being used illegally, and they had made—they had not done anything to make the use legal or stop the use, the illegal use. So the grading was just one of the minor issues. And I'm sure, like I said, this had been discussed with Mr. Matzen and probably the Office of Law at that point in time and felt rather than let the use continue on the property, that we could stop it and shut it down. Q: What is the basis for your statement that they had done nothing to address the use issue? A: Without looking at the notes, I would just have to assume that they had not gotten any of the permits. They had not corrected any of the issues on the Consent Order or the violation notice that we had sent them. * * * A: Because I am going back thinking that we probably sat down with Mr. Matzen and discussed the fact that Jeff's, on giving them additional time for the grading, has nothing to do with the zoning and use of the property. It had to do with the grading and he could give them time to do the grading. It didn't impact what they were doing on site. The fact that they were still carrying out their business and they were doing an illegal use there was a whole separate issue. Q: So you believe that the 10—correct me if I am wrong here. You issued the 10-day letter based on violations having to do with the use on the site and not obtaining the U and O?[1] A: It had to do with the zoning aspect of it, yes, the court order. This 10-day was based on the fact that we had a court order Consent Order based on violations of use and occupancy permit, of not having one, and the illegal use of the property. Q: And it was the illegal use of the property that you believe didn't have anything to do with Mr. DeHan's grading issues, correct? A: Yes. Id., Ex. 25 (Barry Dep. 167:4–168:2, 173:6–174:6) (emphasis added). At her deposition Ms. Wilson testified that Ms. Barry has authority to take action against a property owner for non-compliance with County laws. *9 Q: Do you recognize [Exhibit 10, March 18, 2004 letter from Cindy Barry, Code Enforcement Officer, to Leroy Adams and Jane Higgins] as what I have heard referred to as a ten-day letter? A: I don't know that term. I may have at the time. Q: Would your approval have generally been required for a county code enforcement officer to send a letter of this type? A: No. Q: Is there anyone higher than you within the county government who would have had to approve the sending of a letter of this type? A: No. Q: Who could make a decision to send a letter of this type? A: Cindy. Q: As a county code enforcement officer? A: Correct. Q: And is her authority to send a letter like this set forth in writing in some form? A: If it is set forth in writing, it would probably be in her job description as part of what she would do as a code enforcement officer. There's not even a supervisory CC on here, so it would not have come to me. Q: Is there any scenario that you recall in which the sort of enforcement letters would have had to come to you for review and approval? A: Your question was can I think of a scenario? Q: Do you recall any instances in which an enforcement letter was sent to you for approval before it was sent out by a code enforcement officer? A: I don't recall, no. * * * Q: Would Ms. Barry have been authorized to propose padlocking the SADISCO facility. A: Yes. Id., Ex. 11 (Wilson Dep. 90:5–91:16, 104:6–8). Plaintiff is well aware that Mr. Cornish did not make the decision to padlock SADISCO's facility. On May 26, 2004 Kyle L. Redfearn, Esquire, SADISCO's in-house counsel, wrote a letter to Mr. Matzen whereby Mr. Redfearn claimed “the closure of [SADISCO's] business by your office was unjustified and improper. ” Document No. 256, Ex. 46 at 2 (Letter from Redfearn, Esq. to Matzen of 5/26/04 at 1) (emphasis added). In the May 28, 2004 letter from Mr. Redfearn to Leroy Maddox, Esquire, an attorney with the County's Office of Law, Mr. Redfearn wrote, “The bottom line is that SADISCO has suffered irreparable damage to its business and its business relationships as a result of Mr. Matzen's precipitous decision to padlock the facility without timely or proper notice. That decision has been made and the damages it caused cannot be undone.” Id., Ex. 49 (Letter from Redfearn, Esq. to Maddox, Esq. of 5/28/04 at 2) (emphasis added). In the letter of June 16, 2004 from Mr. Redfearn to Thomas Matzen, Mr. Redfearn asserted, “your office's precipitous decision to close the facility[.]” Id., Ex. 51 (Letter from Redfearn, Esq. to Matzen of 6/16/04 at 1). Similarly, in the letter of July 14, 2004 from Mr. Redfearn to Cynthia Barry, Mr. Redfearn declared, “since your office's precipitous decision to padlock the facility on April 28, 2004.” Id., Ex. 53 at 2 (Letter from Redfearn, Esq. to Barry of 7/14/04 at 1). Thomas Matzen and Cynthia Barry are employees of Defendant, in the Community Standards Division of the Department of Environmental Resources. Based on all of the evidence cited above, Plaintiff's assertion that Mr. Cornish approved the padlocking of SADISCO's facility is without support. The Court now turns its attention to Plaintiff's assertion that Mr. Cornish denied SADISCO's request to reopen promptly its facility. *10 Q: Are—are you aware of any requests that SADISCO made to be allowed to reopen after SADISCO was padlocked? A: Yes, I have vague recollections that they did. Q: That they made that request? A: They made that request. Q: To whom did they make it, as you recall? A: I think to Mr. Matzen. Q: And were you involved in deciding on that request? A: I'm—I'm sure that that's probably the reason why I have some recollection of that, that they did discuss that with me; but I—I think we supported keeping it—continue to—to keep it padlocked. Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 53:8–23). Q: Do you have any sense of the timing of—of—of SADISCO's request to be allowed to reopen relative to the padlocking? A: No, I don't. I don't recall. Q: Who, other than yourself, was involved in the decision on that request? A: Clarify—clarify your question again. Q: The request to be allowed to reopen the SADISCO business, who was involved in that decision? A: Mr. Matzen and Ms. Wilson. Q: Were you also involved? A: Yes. Q: Any others? A: Not that I'm aware of. Q: And were the reasons for not allowing them to reopen the ones that you've already stated? A: That is correct. Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 57:22–58:14). During his deposition Mr. Cornish was shown Exhibit 9, a May 10, 2004 e-mail from Mr. Cornish to Larry Taub, counsel for SADISCO. The body of the e-mail states, “Larry, here is the list of items that need to be corrected on SADISCO.” Id., Ex. 37 (E-mail from Cornish to Taub of 5/10/04 at 1). Mr. Cornish forwarded an attachment he received from Donna Wilson. That attachment stated Issues to be resolved for SADISCO site: Obtain approved grading permit and plans for existing grading (20+ acres) and any and all proposed grading to be incorporated. Obtain approved grading site plan. Obtain approved SD/SWM permits and plans. Obtain approved erosion and sediment control plans. Obtain approved Tree Conservation plans or Letter of Exemption. Perform all work in accordance with approved permits and plans, to include fine grading, stormwater management facilities, site development requirement, Maryland Accessibility Code/ADA requirements. Install any required landscaping and permanent stabilization of disturbed areas. Obtain all requisite certifications and as-builts. Obtain building, mechanical and electrical permits for all structures to be erected on site. It is our understanding that a temporary trailer will not be permitted as a part of the approved site plan. Obtain approved MNCPPC site plan for any and all proposed uses at the site and ensure compliance with same. Resolve issue with vehicles on site which will are [sic] in a “state of ruin.” Obtain final approvals of other agencies, WSSC and DPW&T for work they require at the site. Obtain final inspection approval on all permits. Id., Ex. 37 (E-mail from Cornish to Taub of 5/10/04 at 2). Mr. Cornish was questioned about this e-mail and the attached list. Q: What's the context for you sending this e-mail to Mr. Taub? A: And that's—it's a very good question. I'm not—I'm not sure. I'm going to—I assume, and I shouldn't be assuming; but I'm—that Mr. Taub probably had a conversation with me, and he wanted to know what issues needed to be resolved. And so these were the issues that needed to be resolved. *11 * * * Q: Do you recall any communications with anyone on behalf of SADISCO connected with these items that needed to be corrected? A: Other than with Ms. Wilson and Mr. Matzen, that's—that's about it. Q: What did you and Mr. Matzen and Ms. Wilson communicate about? A: I—I requested the—that—this list of items that needed to be corrected. Q: And what led you to request it? A: Again, I'm—I'm assuming it was based on a discussion with Mr. Taub related to that. I don't—I don't recall it, but I'm just—I'm spec—clearly, I'm speculating, and I really shouldn't be but... * * * Q: Who prepared this list of items that's attached to the exhibit—or that's the second page of the exhibit and is the attachment to this e-mail? A: It looks like it came from Ms. Wilson. Q: Do you have any awareness whether it was she who prepared them? A: No, it—no, I don't. Q: Were you substantively involved in coming up with this list of issues? A: No, I wasn't. Q: Do you have any awareness of—of who, other than Ms. Wilson, was substantively involved? A: No, I don't. Q: Now, Mr. Cornish, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see obtaining a U&O permit on the list of—of issues that's attached here. A: Well, the—the re—the reason you don't see it is because in order to get a U&O, all these things needed to be done. I mean, it's the—it's the end. Once all of these things are done, then you would get it. Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 59:20–60:3, 8–22, 61:12–62:7). Defendant has located some e-mails of Mr. Cornish concerning SADISCO. For instance, on May 10, 2004 Mr. Matzen sent an e-mail to Ms. Wilson and sent a courtesy copy to Ronald Russell and Mr. Cornish. The body of Mr. Matzen's e-mail states Mr. Taub called this morning to request that I allow insurance adjusters anmd [sic] 4 to 6 Sadisco staff to go onto the Sadisco site to start the removal process for the vehicles. I advised him that the only thing we would allow is the removal of the vehicles. Please advise, if my understanding is incorrect. Id., Ex. 35 at 68 (E-mail from Matzen to Wilson of 5/10/204). That same day Mr. Cornish sent a reply stating, “Tom, you are correct!” Id., Ex. 35 at 68 (E-mail from Cornish to Matzen of 5/10/04). Before Mr. Cornish sent the list of items to Mr. Taub, Mr. Cornish attended a meeting on May 5, 2004 concerning the SADISCO South Site on Foxley Road. Ms. Wilson and Mr. Matzen also attended the meeting. Erv Beckert, then a District Engineer with the Department of Public Works and Transportation, prepared an e-mail summarizing what occurred at the meeting. According to Mr. Beckert, “Mr. Cornish stated that the property owner must remove the vehicles from the property, but that the County could, at least, provide to said property owner a list of requirements that he must comply with to be in good stead with the County.” Id., Ex. 40 (E-mail from Beckert to Coppage of 5/6/04 at 2). Based on the evidence cited above, the Court finds Mr. Cornish, indeed, had a role in denying SADISCO's request to reopen its facility immediately. *12 Before addressing Plaintiff's spoliation of evidence assertion, the Court will review the sequence of events involving these parties. On April 28, 2004 the County padlocked SADISCO's facility. On September 16, 2004 Jane Powers Huggins filed, under the Maryland Public Information Act (“MPIA”), an Amended Complaint against Prince George's County, Maryland, the Department of Environmental Resources, the Prince George's County Department of Public Works and Transportation, and the Prince George's County Department of Health, Environment Health Division, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Document No. 256, Ex. 59 (Letter from McCarthy, Esq. to Segars, Esq. of 4/15/08 at 2). On August 24, 2005 Plaintiff issued a Notification to Preserve Electronic Data to Defendant. Document No. 106 (Letter from Woolf, Esq. to Judge Connelly of 9/29/08 at 5). In April and May of 2006 OITC “conducted a search of all email accounts, shared drives, mainframe and personal computers within the County Government, with a focus on Department of Public Works & Transportation, Department of Environmental Resources, Health Department and Office of Law in response to the Plaintiff's MPIA request.” Document No. 259, Ex. 4 (Letter from Johnson, Esq. to Segars, Esq. of 10/28/08 at 1). On July 13, 2006 the parties reached an agreement resolving the MPIA action, as memorialized in an Order of Court from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. See id., Ex. 3 at 10. The terms of the agreement were memorialized and signed by counsel for the parties. Paragraph 6 of the agreement states, “This settlement shall not act as a waiver of the plaintiff to pursue any action that is not related to the MPIA requests at issue here.” Id., Ex. 3 at 12. Less than a year later, on March 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit in this Court against Defendant. There is some confusion regarding when Defendant, the County, issued a litigation hold for SADISCO-related documents. Interrogatory No. 9: Please describe in detail all steps you took to gather and/or preserve documents after receiving any request to do so by SADISCO, identify any “litigation hold” or similar directives that were given in connection with or as a result of your receipt of that request. ANSWER: A Litigation Hold was requested on March 10, 2008 by the Office of Law to Defendant's Office of Information Technology and Communications (OITC). The Litigation Hold requested that OITC retrieve any and all documents, including emails, from the shared drives, mainframes, and personal computers. ... Id., Ex. 3 at 6 (Letter from McCarthy, Esq. to Judge Connelly of 10/6/08 at 4). In an October 6, 2008 letter Mr. McCarthy explained the following about when a litigation hold was requested. At a hearing before this Court Ms. Johnson explained that there existed a gap between the close of the MPIA action in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. The gap represents the period from the close of that action, on July 13, 2006 to Plaintiff placing the Defendants on Notice that they preserve documents, forwarded on March 10, 2008. Id., Ex. 3 at 3 (Letter from McCarthy, Esq. to Judge Connelly of 10/6/08 at 1). Attached to this October 6, 2008 letter is the March 10, 2008 litigation hold request from Plaintiff's counsel to Defendant's counsel, which states in pertinent part, *13 We have identified current and former County employees who may have relevant documents pertaining to this litigation. Pursuant to the federal and local rules (as well as the Notification to Preserve Electronic Data that SADISCO issued to the County in 2005, which is still in force), please advise the individuals listed below to preserve any documents that are relevant to this action or could lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Id., Ex. 3 at 8 (Letter from Woolf, Esq. to Creech, Esq. of 3/10/08 at 1). During his March 27, 2009 deposition the following exchange occurred between William Addis of OITC and Plaintiff's counsel. Q: Other than your own personal knowledge that you have because you received a directive on March 11th, 2008, do you have any information related to the efforts taken by the county to preserve electronically stored information relevant to the Sadisco matter? A: No. Document No. 256, Ex. 9 (Addis Dep. 37:5–11). However, in a October 28, 2008 letter, counsel for Defendant asserted, “[w]hen Defendant received notice of the lawsuit on March 10, 2007, the Office of Law sent OITC a request to search and hold any and all electronic information and save any newly discovered information to the server where the previous electronic information is stored on a separate server.” Document No. 259, Ex. 4 at 1 (Letter from Johnson, Esq. to Segars, Esq. of 10/28/08 at 1) (emphasis added). No evidence has been presented that Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant of the lawsuit before filing the lawsuit on March 30, 2007. Nor has Defendant submitted to the Court for review a copy of the notice the Office of Law sent to OITC in March of 2007. Based on a review of the record, the overwhelming evidence indicates a directive was sent to OITC in March of 2008. Many of the witnesses deposed where unaware of any obligation to preserve documents relevant to the MPIA action or this lawsuit. Q: Have you ever been instructed to make sure that substantive emails are printed and put in the County's paper files? A: No. Q: Were you ever asked to suspend any purging or deleting of electronic documents related to Sadisco? A: No. Q: Were you ever asked to search for hard copy documents related to Sadisco? A: Yes. Q: When was the first time you were asked to search for documents? A: I don't know. I don't have the date. Document 256, Ex. 28 (DeHan Dep. 56:9–21). Q: In addition to being asked to gather that file and send it to the Director's office, have you ever been asked to preserve materials and not let emails be deleted and so forth? Have you ever been asked to do that, with regard to this case, obviously? A: Asked to specifically, like— Q: Not to delete emails? A: No, I have never been asked not to. Id., Ex. 29 (Barry Dep. 15:13–20). Q: Have you ever, at any time, been asked to search for documents relating to Foxley Road or Sadisco's property, in particular, let's say from the year 2004 to the present? A: The only thing that I can recall is I believe—no. No, I didn't, no. Q: Have you ever been asked to preserve documents in your possession relating to Foxley Road or Sadisco's property, in particular? A: No. Id., Ex. 30 (Meyer Dep. 10:3–12). Q: [H]ave you ever been asked to search for documents to be produced to SADISCO, either in connection with MPIA requests or this lawsuit? A: No. Q: Have you ever been asked or directed to preserve documents related to SADISCO? A: No. Id., Ex. 31 (Magner Dep. 39:21–40:5). *14 Q: [W]ere you ever asked by anyone within the County to preserve any documents you have in connection with Sadisco's property? A: No, ma'am. Q: Were you ever asked to produce those documents to the Office of Law, any documents that you may have maintained with regard to the property? A: Me, personally? No, ma'am. Id., Ex. 32 (Holzberger Dep. 12:11–18). Q: [H]ave you been asked to preserve documents related to the Sadisco property or Foxley Road in connection with this lawsuit? A: I don't recall. * * * Q: Has anyone ever asked you to search documents related to Sadisco or Foxley Road, to search for them? * * * A: Yeah. I don't recall. BY MS. DILLON: Q: Okay. Did you ever gather any documents or emails to produce in this lawsuit or in the MPIA litigation? A: I did not. Id., Ex. 33 (Hijazi Dep. 177:4-7, 10–12, 15–20). Q: Have you ever been asked to preserve documents relating to Foxley Road, either not delete them from your computer or put them aside? A: I don't have any recollection of that, no. Id., Ex. 34 (Wildeson Dep. 10:5–8). The seven individuals, whose testimonies are quoted above, were identified on Ms. Woolf's March 10, 2008 letter requesting a litigation hold. SeeDocument No. 259, Ex. 3 at 8 (Letter from Woolf, Esq. to Creech, Esq. of 3/10/08 at 1). Other witnesses, who were not identified on the litigation hold letter, were questioned regarding a directive to preserve documents. Q: During the time you were working at the county, were you ever asked to search for any documents related to SADISCO? A: No, I was not. Q: Nor after you left the county, you were never asked to search? A: No, never. Q: During the time when you worked with the county, were you ever asked to preserve or refrain from deleting anything related to SADISCO? A: No, I was not. Document No. 256, Ex.2 (Cornish Dep. 75:19–76:4). According to Mr. Addis of OITC, Mr. Cornish left employment with the County on March 17, 2006. Document No. 267, Ex. 1 (Addis Aff. ¶ 5.). Despite Plaintiff initiating the MPIA action on September 16, 2004 and further despite Plaintiff issuing a Notification to Preserve Electronic Data on August 24, 2005, Defendant did not request a search of e-mail accounts, shared drives, mainframe and personal computers until April/May 2006, after Mr. Cornish's departure. Furthermore, OITC's search, per Defendant's directive, focused on “Department of Public Works & Transportation, Department of Environmental Resources, Health Department and Office of Law....” Document No. 259, Ex. 5 (Letter from Johnson, Esq. to Segars, Esq. of 10/28/08 at 1). Mr. Cornish, as a Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, worked in the Office of the County Executive, an agency not included within the April/May 2006 search. Moreover, even though, according to Mr. Addis, a former employee's electronic mailbox is not deleted until six months after the individual's departure from employment, see Document No. 267, Ex. 1 (Addis Aff. ¶ 4), well within the April/May 2006 search timeframe, the Office of the County Executive was not a focus of the search. SADISCO's August 24, 2005 Notification to Preserve Electronic Data identified as potentially relevant “any and all electronic data contained on any desktop computer, notebook computer, personal computer, or portable storage media utilized by the Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources (“DER”), Department of Health (“Health Department”) and Department of Public Works and Transportation (“DPW&T”) ....” Document No. 106-6 at 1. The Office of the County Executive was not identified by SADISCO nor was Alfonso Cornish. *15 Although Ms. Wilson's department, the Department of Environmental Resources, was a focus of the April/May 2006 search by OITC, Ms. Wilson was never notified about preserving relevant documents. Q: Do you know of any kind of directive or instruction that was given within DER to preserve documents relating to SADISCO at any point in time? A: No, I don't know. Q: With respect to hard copy documents, do you know of any directive or instruction that was given within DER to preserve hard copy documents related to SADISCO? A: I don't recall. Q: Was there any written document retention policy or protocol for the preservation of documents that were related to litigation or what would be characterized as in anticipation of litigation? A: I don't recall any policy. Q: Do you know whether at any time the county searched your electronic documents to respond to either MPIA requests from SADISCO or discovery in the lawsuit? A: I don't know. Document No. 256, Ex. 3 (Wilson Dep. 58:3–21). The following table summarizes the key sequence of events underlying SADISCO's motion for spoliation of evidence. Analysis “Spoliation refers to the destruction or material alteration of evidence or to the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001). Whether the County could reasonably foresee litigation resulting from the April 28, 2004 padlocking from SADISCO's facility is debatable but what is clear is that the County had a duty to preserve evidence when SADISCO filed its MPIA action on September 16, 2004. What action the County took in response to the initiation of the MPIA action is unknown. On August 24, 2005 SADISCO issued a Notification to Preserve Electronic Data to the County. The first paragraph of this Notification states in pertinent part Although SADISCO's requests for public records triggered Prince George's County's duty to preserve electronic data, this notice is intended to act as a reminder of the scope of the County's duty to preserve electronic data and the consequences arising from the failure to preserve. This notice is not intended to waive any of SADISCO's rights or claims with regard to electronic data that may have been wrongfully destroyed prior to the issuance of this notice. *16 Document No. 106-6 at 1. What action the County took in response to this Notification is not known. What is known is that not until April/May 2006, more than eight months after the August 24, 2005 Notification and a year and a half after SADISCO filed its MPIA action, OITC conducted a search of electronic records, in accordance with the Office of Law's request. SeeDocument No. 259, Ex. 4 (Letter from Johnson, Esq. to Segars, Esq. of 10/28/08 at 1). When the MPIA action settled on July 13, 2006, the County apparently was under the impression that all issues were resolved. “The gap [in relevant documents] represents the period from the close of [the MPIA action], on July 13, 2006 to Plaintiff placing Defendants on Notice that they preserve documents, forwarded on March 10, 2008.” Document No. 259, Ex. 3 at 3 (Letter from McCarthy, Esq. to Judge Connelly of 10/6/08 at 1). However, among the terms of settlement of the MPIA action is item number 6 which states, “[t]his settlement shall not act as a waiver of the plaintiff to pursue any action that is not related to the MPIA requests at issue here.” Id., Ex. 3 at 12. The County appears to argue that its duty to preserve is only triggered onceit receives notice from SADISCO. This is not so. “While a litigant certainly may request that an adversary agree to preserve electronic records during the pendency of a case, or even seek a court order directing that this happen, it is not required, and a failure to do so does not vitiate the independent obligation of an adverse party to preserve such information.” Thompson v. HUD, 219 F.R.D. 93, 100 (D. Md. 2003) (emphasis added). Once such a duty is triggered, the County should have suspended its routine document retention/destruction policy. Simultaneously, the County should have issued a litigation hold to ensure potentially relevant documents are not destroyed or altered. Id. Contrary to the steps outlined in the two preceding paragraphs, the County did not suspend its routine retention/destruction policy nor did it issue a litigation hold to preserve relevant documents. In fact, despite the fact that SADISCO filed its lawsuit on March 30, 2007, the County did not take any steps to preserve potentially relevant documents until March 10, 2008, the day SADISCO notified the County to preserve relevant documents. The County's counsel admitted during the August 5, 2008 motions hearing, that after the MPIA action was settled on July 13, 2006, the County resumed its normal records retention/destruction policy. See Document No. 94 (Tr. at 26:13–19). The basis of SADISCO's motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence revolves around Alfonso Cornish. SADISCO contends he was a key player in the shutdown and immediate aftermath; the County denies Mr. Cornish was a key player. This Court has an inherent power to sanction the County for spoliation if proven. Such power derives from “the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process in order to retain confidence that the process works to uncover the truth.” Silvestri, 271 F.3d at 590. SADISCO, as the party seeking sanctions for spoliation, must prove the following elements (1) the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it when it was destroyed or altered; (2) the destruction or loss was accompanied by a “culpable state of mind;” and (3) the evidence that was destroyed or altered was “relevant” to the claims or defense of the party that sought the discovery of the spoliated evidence, to the extent that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the lost evidence would have supported the claims or defenses of the party that sought it. Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 509 (D. Md. 2009). Obligation to Preserve When SADISCO and the County reached a settlement of the MPIA action on July 13, 2006, the Court finds the terms of the agreement, particularly paragraph six, did not clearly and directly indicate to the County that a subsequent litigation was forthcoming. From the County's perspective SADISCO was satisfied with the production of responsive documents. SADISCO did not file its lawsuit in this Court until March 30, 2007, nearly eight months after the parties settled the MPIA action. Because the March 30, 2007 litigation was not reasonably foreseeable, the County's obligation to preserve did not begin before that date. *17 The County has admitted that it did not direct OITC to preserve electronic documents until after receiving SADISCO's March 10, 2008 notice to preserve document. The County's obligation to preserve was triggered with the filing of this lawsuit. The County has not provided any legitimate excuse for its belated implementation of a litigation hold. When SADISCO filed this lawsuit on March 30, 2007, Mr. Cornish's employment with the County had been terminated for more than one year. See Document No. 267, Ex. 1 (Addis Aff. ¶ 5) (“Mr. Cornish left employment on March 17, 2006 ....). Mr. Cornish's e-mail box was deleted from the County's servers six months after the termination of his employment or on or about September 16, 2006. Mr. Cornish's e-mail box was deleted consistent with the County's practices. See id., Ex. 1 (Addis Aff. ¶ 4) (“[T]he Department of Human Resources Management notifies Network Services, a department within the Office of Information Technology, that the employer/user is no longer on payroll. Network Services disables the e-mail box preventing any incoming or outgoing emails from the mailbox and the mailbox is deleted after six (6) months.”). Since, on or about September 16, 2006, the County did not reasonably foresee litigation with SADISCO, there was no reason to preserve Mr. Cornish's e-mail box.[2] It is unclear what the County's retention policy is on non-electronic or paper documents. Mr. Cornish testified at his deposition that he had a paper file on SADISCO. The County has been unsuccessful in locating the paper file. The County's duty to preserve Mr. Cornish's paper file was triggered on March 30, 2007, a year after Mr. Cornish left employment with the County. SADISCO has not established that the County was in possession of Mr. Cornish's paper file as of March 30, 2007 and subsequently lost or destroyed it. The Court finds between July 13, 2006 and March 29, 2007 the County did not have a duty to preserve Mr. Cornish's paper file on SADISCO. Although the Court has found SADISCO has not proven the first element, the Court will address whether Mr. Cornish was a key player. “[I]dentifying a ‘key player’ in litigation is not dependent on the volume of interaction between an individual and a litigant, but rather is determined by whether an individual is likely to have information relevant to the events that underlie the litigation.” Goodman, 632 F. Supp. 2d at 512. Although as discussed supra Mr. Cornish was not involved in the decision to padlock SADISCO's facility on April 28, 2004, Mr. Cornish was involved in the decision of denying SADISCO's request to reopen immediately the facility. Mr. Cornish thus had information relevant to the events underlying this litigation and is therefore a key player. Culpable State of Mind Mr. Cornish's electronic data was deleted in accordance with routine practices of the County when employment is terminated. This deletion occurred after the MPIA action was settled but before this lawsuit was filed. Regarding the non-electronic or paper documents, the Court refers to its observations above. No culpability may be attributed to the County since the duty to preserve had not been triggered when Mr. Cornish's records (electronic and non-electronic) were deleted and/or destroyed. Relevance of the destroyed evidence *18 SADISCO argues that Mr. Cornish is a key witness on the policy and custom aspects of its Monell claim. The evidence does not support SADISCO's assertion of Mr. Cornish's role with the decision to padlock SADISCO's facility. Ms. Wilson, former director of DER, provided insight about DER's operation. Q: With regard to DER enforcement programs, was there anyone in the County Executive Office that had oversight responsibilities for DER's enforcement programs? A: No. Document No. 259, Ex. 11 (Wilson Dep. 42:8–12). Mr. Cornish was the DCAO who funneled information from DER to the County Executive. He did not oversee DER's day-today operations. Contrary to SADISCO's assertions the multi-department response to SADISCO's alleged violations was not unique. Q: To the best of your knowledge, would it be unusual for the Prince George's County agencies to have an interdepartmental meeting to discuss grading violations and U&O permits? A: That doesn't strike me as unusual if there are issues that are involved. * * * Q: How often would the agencies get together in the context of an interdepartmental meeting to discuss the shut down of a business? A: On a regular basis. I mean, there were all kind of businesses that were shut down. Depending on what the reasons were, it would involve many agencies and some that are even on here. Id., Ex. 11 (Wilson Dep. 97:19–982:2, 9–15). Mr. Cornish also confirmed that the padlocking of businesses, which are operating improperly, is a frequent occurrence. See Document No. 256, Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 37:14–38:2). Mr. Cornish testified that he was not involved in the decision to padlock SADISCO's facility. He became involved after the fact. Based on the available record, including Mr. Cornish's deposition testimony as well as correspondence from SADISCO's counsel the months after the facility was padlocked, Mr. Cornish was not the primary point-of-contact at the County as SADISCO attempted to have its facility reopened. Mr. Cornish's role was more of a facilitator. Mr. Cornish “was responsible for about 27 different agencies and departments, and some quasi-governmental departments; departments such as the Department of Public Works and Transportation, Department of Environmental Resources.” Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 14:21–25). His job entailed “coordinat[ing] with the respective department managers, to deal with any problems or situations that they faced on a day-to-day basis; and really, to serve as a liaison between the Office of the County Executive and—and those departments in terms of the carrying out of policies, procedures that were necessary.” Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 15:14–20). The e-mails the County was able to retrieve confirm Mr. Cornish's role was on the periphery. Mr. Cornish testified about his limited role and his testimony is consistent with documents retrieved by the County and correspondence between Mr. Cornish and SADISCO's counsel after SADISCO's facility was padlocked. Moreover, when SADISCO issued the Notification to Preserve Electronic Data on August 24, 2005, SADISCO identified DER, DPW&T and the Department of Health as possessing relevant documents. At the time SADISCO issued the Notification, SADISCO knew that its counsel, Mr. Taub, communicated via e-mail with Mr. Cornish on May 10, 2004 and addressed a letter to Mr. Cornish, “Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Governmental Operations and Environmental Services [,] Office of the County Executive” on May 11, 2004. See id., Ex. 41 (Letter from Taub, Esq. to Cornish of 5/11/04 at 1). SADISCO was aware of Mr. Cornish's involvement, knew he worked in the Office of the County Executive, yet never flagged his records as relevant. *19 Similarly, when SADISCO issued its March 10, 2008 litigation hold letter, SADISCO identified current and former employees who may have relevant documents. SADISCO listed twenty-five (25) names. Despite SADISCO's knowledge of Mr. Cornish's involvement after its facility was padlocked and despite its counsel communicating directly with Mr. Cornish, SADISCO did not include Alfonso Cornish among the 25 current and former employees who may have relevant documents. See Document No. 259, Ex. 3 at 8 (Letter from Woolf, Esq. to Creech, Esq. at 1). Mr. Cornish's limited role in this case is illustrated in the following colloquies from his November 18, 2008 deposition. Q: Now, before hearing that your deposition was being sought, had you heard about SADISCO's lawsuit against Prince George's County? A: No, I was not aware of it. Q: So when did you first become aware of it? A: When—when I was contacted about the deposition. And I'm—I'm not even sure if I was told then there was a lawsuit. I was informed that there was a deposition and—I would have to—to give in this case. Q: All right. Okay. Can you give me your understanding of what the lawsuit is about? A: I—I have no idea, to—to be totally candid. I—I—unfortunately, I don't even have real recollections of SADISCO, so... Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 12:4–18). Q: What was your reaction when you heard that SADISCO had sued the county? * * * A: Well, the problem was that I couldn't remember what SADISCO was. So I—it just—it did—I had—it—I had no—I had no feelings to what—cause I couldn't—I just couldn't remember it. BY MR. SAWCHAK: Q: Once you remembered who SADISCO was, to the extent that you have remembered, were you surprised to learn that SADISCO had sued the county? * * * A: —well, the pro—the problem is—is that I'm—I'm still not quite sure who SADISCO is, to be—to be really honest. And—and I'm—and I'm—I'm not really clear on what the lawsuit is about cause no one's really told me what the lawsuit is about. So I really don't know. BY MR. SAWCHAK: Q: When you say I'm not clear on “who SADISCO is,” I mean, SADISCO is the business[ ] that was the subject of these meetings— A: Right. Q: —that you described. A: But—but I'm—I—I couldn't tell you who the owners were, who the principals were, any—anything. I mean, what their line of business was, I—I mean, I just—I don't know. Id., Ex. 2 (Cornish Dep. 71:24–25, 72:3 12, 16–73:6). The loss or destruction of Mr. Cornish's electronic and non-electronic documents, though relevant, is not harmful or prejudicial as SADISCO portrays. The Court finds, considering Mr. Cornish's role as a facilitator and that his participation was on the periphery, the loss or destruction of Mr. Cornish's electronic and non-electronic documents is de minimis. For the above reasons, SADISCO has failed to prove the elements for a spoliation sanctions. Therefore SADISCO's Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence (Document No. 256) is hereby DENIED. The County must pay SADISCO $2,000 for the reasons stated supra. Footnotes [1] Use and Occupancy. [2] As noted supra the focus of SADISCO's MPIA action were three County departments: Department of Environmental Resources, the Department of Health and the Department of Public Works and Transportation. Mr. Cornish worked in the Office of the County Executive and SADISCO did not request records from this office.