Defendant filed a motion seeking to compel Plaintiff to produce documents, for sanctions, and for other relief, stemming from an earlier order compelling the production of “development” documents for a certain period of time.  In addition, the motion accuses Plaintiff of spoliation of evidence by “failing to retain key documents” ordered by the court to be produced. 
 
In ruling on the motion, the Court noted that a finding of “willfulness” or “bad faith” in the context of failure to produce documents ordered by the court to be produced is not necessary for imposition of sanctions. Id. at *14.  “When the prospect of litigation is present, parties are required to preserve documents that may be relevant to the issues to be raised, and their failure to do so may result in a finding of spoliation of evidence. The obligation to preserve evidence begins when a party knows or should have known that the evidence is relevant to future or current litigation.”  Id. at *15. (citations omitted).  Further, when “the destruction of evidence occurs after litigation is imminent or has begun, no bad faith need be shown by the moving party for the court to impose sanctions. Id. at *16.  
 
The Court, in delineating some of Plaintiff’s failures, explained that during the discovery process “counsel are required to direct the conduct of a thorough search for responsive documents with due diligence and ensure all responsive documents under the ‘custody or control’ of the client, unless protected from discovery, are produced.”  Id.  Once the Court issues an order concerning the production of certain documents, counsel’s responsibility raises to a higher level to “affirmatively direct complete compliance with the order in objective good faith.”  Id. at *16.  
 
Finally, the Court explained that the “seriousness of counsel’s failures to take affirmative actions to ensure the prompt production of all documents ordered to be produced cannot be overstated. The overriding theme of recent amendments to the discovery rules has been open and forthright sharing of information by all parties to a case with the aim of expediting case progress, minimizing burden and expense, and removing contentiousness as much as practicable.”  Id. at *17. (internal citations omitted).