Case Blurb: Santana; Federal Court Cites Florida Law on Spoliation Sanctions
Posted by rjbiii on April 8, 2011
Under Florida law, the party seeking spoliation sanctions must prove
(1) that the missing evidence existed at one time;
(2) that the alleged spoliator had a duty to pre-serve the evidence; * and
(3) that the evidence was crucial to the movant being able to prove its prima facie case or defense.”
Even if these three elements are met, before a court may impose spoliation sanctions, the movant must also show, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the alleged spoliator acted in bad faith.
* “A party has an obligation to retain relevant documents . . . where litigation is reasonably anticipated.” Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc., 2010 WL 3368654, at *6; see also Wilson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88429, 2008 WL 4642596, at *2 (stating that “[t]he law imposes a duty upon litigants to keep documents that they know, or reasonably should know, are relevant to the matter.”) (footnote omitted).
Santana v. RCSH Opers. LLC., CASE NO. 10-61376-CIV-SELTZER, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21785 @ *4-6 (S.D. Fla Feb. 18, 2011).
This entry was posted on April 8, 2011 at 2:00 am and is filed under 11th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Case Blurbs-FL, Florida, Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer, S.D. Fla., Sanctions, Spoliation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
