Electronic Logging Device (ELD) data is one of the most important categories of evidence in modern commercial truck litigation. Whether and how that data is preserved after a crash is shaped by federal regulation, Georgia common law on spoliation, and ordinary civil procedure. Georgia does not have an ELD-specific preservation statute, but the way Georgia courts apply general preservation duties to ELD evidence makes the topic distinct in practice. This guide explains the federal baseline, the Georgia-specific layers, and how they fit together.
The Federal Baseline: When ELDs Are Required and What They Record
The ELD mandate is codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 395 Subpart B. The rule became fully effective for most carriers on December 18, 2017. Compliance with the registered ELD requirement (replacing earlier Automatic On-Board Recording Devices) extended through December 16, 2019.
An ELD synchronizes with the vehicle engine and automatically records driving time, location at defined intervals, engine hours, vehicle miles, identification data for the driver, vehicle, and motor carrier, and other duty-status information. The technical specifications are in 49 C.F.R. Part 395 Subpart B Appendix.
In Georgia, intrastate motor carriers became subject to the ELD rule on January 1, 2019, by action of the Georgia Department of Public Safety, which adopted the federal rule for intrastate operations.
Federal Retention Requirements
Two federal retention provisions are central:
49 C.F.R. Section 395.8(k)(1) requires the carrier to retain records of duty status (RODS) and supporting documents for six months from the date of receipt.
49 C.F.R. Section 395.22(i) requires the carrier to back up the ELD data on a device separate from where the original data is stored and to retain the backup for six months.
Supporting documents are defined in 49 C.F.R. Section 395.11 and include bills of lading, dispatch records, expense receipts, fleet management system communications, and payroll/settlement records.
The carrier and the driver each have specific rights and duties for transferring ELD data on request (Section 395.24), correcting and annotating records (Section 395.30), and certifying daily records.
The Six-Month Cliff and Why Preservation Letters Matter
Because federal retention is only six months, ELD data and supporting documents will, in the ordinary course, be lawfully disposed of in less than a year. After a serious crash, this is a problem: an investigation may take months, and the plaintiff often does not file suit immediately. If the carrier disposes of the data on its normal schedule, the most valuable evidence in the case can be lost.
Georgia law solves this through the duty to preserve evidence. The duty arises independently of the six-month federal retention floor and overrides it once it attaches.
Georgia’s Duty to Preserve: Phillips v. Harmon
The leading Georgia case on the duty to preserve evidence is Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (2015). In Phillips, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the duty to preserve evidence arises when litigation is reasonably foreseeable. The Court rejected a rule that required a formal demand or actual notice in every case. Instead, the analysis depends on:
- What the alleged spoliator knew or should have known about potential litigation.
- The defendant’s actions following the event, including investigations, communications with insurers, and engagement of counsel.
- Whether the plaintiff or someone on the plaintiff’s behalf provided notice or a preservation request.
Applied to commercial truck crashes, the duty often attaches at or near the time of the crash. Carriers investigate, retain accident-response counsel, and report to insurers; each of these activities supports the inference that litigation is reasonably foreseeable.
Spoliation Sanctions Available in Georgia
When the duty has attached and relevant evidence is lost or destroyed, Georgia courts can impose a range of sanctions. The framework summarized in Phillips and earlier cases such as Bouve & Mohr, LLC v. Banks, 274 Ga. App. 758 (2005), considers:
- The willfulness of the spoliating party’s conduct.
- The degree of prejudice to the opposing party.
- The need to deter such conduct in the future.
- The availability of lesser sanctions.
Possible sanctions include a rebuttable presumption that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the spoliator, exclusion of testimony or expert opinions that relied on the lost data, striking pleadings or defenses, and in extreme cases dismissal of claims or entry of default. Georgia courts have applied these sanctions in trucking cases where ELD data, ECM data, and dashcam recordings were not preserved.
Sample Preservation Practice in Georgia Trucking Cases
In practice, Georgia plaintiffs’ counsel typically sends a preservation letter to the carrier, its insurer, and any retained counsel within days of the crash. The letter ordinarily demands preservation of:
- The complete ELD export for the driver and unit for the six months preceding and the period immediately following the crash.
- The carrier’s audit log of any ELD edits or annotations (Section 395.30).
- Supporting documents under Section 395.11.
- ECM and EDR data from the truck (which often must be downloaded promptly because vehicles are repaired or scrapped).
- Dashcam footage (forward and inward), often stored only briefly on rolling buffers.
- Telematics data from systems such as Omnitracs, Samsara, Motive, Geotab, or Lytx.
- Dispatch and load assignment records.
- Driver qualification file (49 C.F.R. Section 391.51).
- Drug and alcohol testing and post-accident testing records (49 C.F.R. Section 382.303).
- Maintenance and inspection records (49 C.F.R. Sections 396.3, 396.11, 396.17).
- The physical truck and trailer, pending joint inspection.
The letter cites the federal regulations, Georgia spoliation law, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) (where applicable). Many Georgia practitioners follow the preservation letter with petitions for pre-suit inspection or an early motion for protective order to preserve specific items.
Court Orders to Preserve
Where cooperation is uncertain, parties may seek a court order. Pre-suit, an aggrieved party may file a petition for discovery under O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-27, although the most common path is a prompt complaint accompanied by an early motion for preservation. Once litigation is filed, the court has broad authority under O.C.G.A. Sections 9-11-26 and 9-11-37 to enter preservation orders and impose sanctions.
ELD Data Authenticity and Admissibility
ELD data is generally admissible in Georgia as a business record under O.C.G.A. Section 24-8-803(6), provided the foundation is laid by a custodian or other qualified witness. Authentication can also rely on the certification provisions in O.C.G.A. Section 24-9-902. Issues that often arise include:
- Edit histories and whether annotations are properly attributed.
- Hardware malfunctions and gaps in data.
- Time-zone calibration.
- Cross-validation with fuel receipts, GPS data, and toll/weigh-station records.
Federal Civil Procedure Considerations
If a Georgia truck case ends up in federal court (often on diversity jurisdiction), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) governs sanctions for failure to preserve electronically stored information. Under Rule 37(e), if ESI that should have been preserved is lost because reasonable steps were not taken to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court may order measures to cure the prejudice. Upon a finding of intent to deprive another party of the information, the court may presume the lost information was unfavorable, instruct the jury accordingly, or dismiss the action or enter a default. Georgia state courts have not adopted a parallel ESI-specific rule, but the broad spoliation framework reaches similar issues.
Practical Significance
Georgia does not have a one-size-fits-all “ELD preservation statute” beyond the federal six-month retention rule. What Georgia does have is a robust spoliation doctrine, broad civil discovery rules under O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-26, and case law (notably Phillips v. Harmon) that triggers preservation duties as soon as litigation is reasonably foreseeable. Combined with the federal regulatory floor in 49 C.F.R. Sections 395.8(k) and 395.22(i), these elements give Georgia litigants the tools needed to ensure that ELD evidence is preserved and produced. The decisive factor in most cases is timing: preservation letters and inspection demands work best when sent promptly after the crash, before the six-month federal retention window quietly closes.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.