In the Words of the Court Gerard E. LYNCH, Circuit judge: aura\": ePRO argues that the monetary sanctions imposed against it are so out of proportion to the value of the evidence uncovered by Klipsch's efforts or to the likely ultimate value of the case as to be impermissibly punitive [punishing] and a violation of due process. That position, although superficially sympathetic given the amount of the sanction, overlooks the fact that ePRO caused Klipsch to accrue those costs by failing to comply with its discovery obligations. Such compliance is not optional or negotiable; rather; the integrity of our civil litigation process requires that the parties before us, although adversarial to one another; carry out their duties to maintain and disclose the relevant information in their possession in good faith. [Emphasis added] The extremely broad discovery permitted by the Federal Rules depends on the parties' voluntary participation. The system functions because, in the vast majority of cases, we can rely on each side to preserve evidence and to disclose relevant information when asked [and sometimes even before then] without being forced to proceed at the point of a court order. The courts are ill-equipped to address \""\"""" ""\"D \"'""' "" 1\""""' \"' \"" l""'\"" "' "' '\""' ' "'\""" \"\"' '"'\" "' "\" ' \"' "l'\"I"I""' "" "'\"'\" """ parties that do not voluntarily comply: we do not have our own investigatory powers, and even if we did, the spoliation of evidence would frequently be extremely difcult for any outsider to detect. Moreover, noncompliance vastly increases the cost of litigation * * *. Accordingly, we have held that discovery sanctions are proper * * *, because an alternative rule would encourage dilatory tactics, and compliance with discovery orders would come only when the backs of counsel and the litigants were against the wall. When we apply those principles to the case at hand, it is clear that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing monetary sanctions calculated to make Klipsch whole for the extra cost and efforts it reasonably undertook in response to ePRO's recalcitrance. **** In sum, we see nothing in ePRO's proportionality arguments compelling us to conclude that the district court abused its discretion by awarding full compensation for efforts that were * * * a reasonable response to ePRO's own evasive conduct. The proportionality that matters here is that the amount of the sanctions was plainly proportionateindeed, it was exactly equivalentto the costs ePRO inicted on sanctions was plainly proportionate-indeed, it was exactly equivalent-to the costs ePRO inflicted on Klipsch in its reasonable efforts to remedy ePRO's misconduct. Decision and Remedy The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the sanctions. "The district court's award properly reflects the additional costs ePRO imposed on its opponent by refusing to comply with its discovery obligations."Klipsch Group, Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Limited United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 880 F.3d 620 (2018). Background and Facts Klipsch Group, Inc., makes sound equipment, including headphones. Klipsch filed a suit in a federal district court against ePRO E-Commerce Limited, a Chinese corporation. Klipsch alleged that ePRO had sold $5 million in counterfeit Klipsch products. ePRO claimed that the sales of relevant products amounted to less than $8,000 worldwide. In response to discovery requests, ePRO failed to timely disclose the majority of the responsive documents in its possession. In addition, ePRO restricted Klipsch's access to its e-data. The court directed ePRO to impose a litigation hold on the custodians of the data to preserve evidence, but the defendant failed to do so. This led to the deletion of thousands of documents and significant quantities of data. To determine what data had been blocked or lost, and what might and might not be recovered, Klipsch spent $2.7 million on a forensic examination. The federal district court concluded that ePRO had willineg engaged in spoliation of eevidence. For this misconduct, the court imposed sanctions, including an order to pay Klipsch the entire $2.7 million for its restorative discovery efforts. ePRO appealed, contending that the sanctions were \"disproportionate." l Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement