Case Blurb: Asher Assocs LLC; Role of Intent in Assessing Sanctions

Common sense suggests that a failure to produce or preserve relevant evidence may involve conduct that falls “along a continuum of fault — ranging from innocence through the degrees of negligence to intentionality.”

In Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398, 1407 (10th Cir. 1997), the Tenth Circuit held that “the bad faith destruction of a document relevant to proof of an issue at trial gives rise to an inference that production of the document would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction.” In the same decision, the Tenth Circuit further reasoned that no adverse inference should arise where the destruction of a document resulted from mere negligence, because only bad faith would support an “inference of consciousness of a weak case.” FN11.

FN11: “‘Bad faith’ is the antithesis of good faith and has been defined in the cases to be when a thing is done dishonestly and not merely negligently. It is also defined as that which imports a dishonest purpose and implies wrongdoing or some motive of self-interest.” Of course, in cases where an adverse inference instruction is neither requested nor appropriate, the Tenth Circuit has held that a finding of bad faith is not required to impose non-dispositive sanctions, such as excluding evidence.

Asher Assocs., LLC v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40136 at *27-28 (D. Colo. May 12, 2009)(internal citations removed).

Case Blurb: Nursing Home Pension Fund; Standards for the imposition of ‘lesser sanctions’

The parties debate whether plaintiffs must demonstrate prejudice before the Court can impose lesser sanctions. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it has sent conflicting signals regarding whether prejudice must be shown in order for the sanction of dismissal to be appropriate. A court in this district recently clarified that the Ninth Circuit has required a showing of prejudice only when courts are acting under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which applies when a party disobeys a court order regarding discovery. When acting under its inherent authority, however, a district court need not consider prejudice to the party moving for sanctions…and prejudice has not been required when a party moves for lesser sanctions. Here, the Court is considering lesser sanctions in the form of an adverse inference, and even assuming prejudice is required, the Court notes that it would be quite difficult for plaintiffs to demonstrate how they were harmed by evidence to which they do not have access.

Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2008 WL 4093497 at *5 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 2, 2008) (internal citations removed).

Case Blurb: Bright; Court Discusses History and Application of the Adverse Inference

[Requesting Party] contends that a jury should be allowed to infer from Plaza’s destruction of the recorded surveillance footage that the tenor of the evidence in the footage was unfavorable to Plaza’s case. According to Bright, therefore, the destruction of the footage showing the area prior to Bright’s fall gives rise to an inference of spoliation. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals explained the history of the spoliation inference in In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Delaware, Inc.:
Since the early 17th century, courts have admitted evidence tending to show that a party destroyed evidence relevant to the dispute being litigated. Such evidence permitted an inference, the “spoliation inference,” that the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to the position of the offending party.
The Court went on to note that
the “key considerations in determining whether such a sanction is appropriate should be: (1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) whether there is a lesser sanction that will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party and, where the offending party is seriously at fault, will serve to deter such conduct by others in the future.”

Bright v. United Corp., 2008 WL 2971769 (V.I. July 22, 2008).

Case Blurb: Bright; Court Discusses Company’s Retention Practices of Surveillance Tapes and Spoliation

This appeal concerns a slip and fall accident that took place at the Plaza Extra supermarket in Estate Sion Farm, St. Croix on June 20, 2004. [...]

The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaza, holding that, because [Plaintiff] Bright failed to provide any evidence that Plaza knew or should have known about the substance on the floor, no reasonable jury could find that Plaza had breached its duty to Bright as a matter of law. The instant appeal followed. [...]

Bright’s fall was captured on Plaza’s closed-circuit video surveillance system, which is comprised of both a digital hard drive that records only a finite amount of data before reusing itself and a video recorder. The digital footage is automatically recorded over every few weeks unless it is manually copied from the digital hard drive to the video recorder. At his June 2005 deposition, Plaza’s manager testified that he examined the footage of Bright’s fall immediately after being notified of her fall, the video failed to show anything visible on the floor at the time of the fall. Concluding that Bright “probably tripped on herself,” the manager testified that he elected not to review or copy any of the footage prior to or after the fall. He also testified that the store had no set procedure for retaining video footage of slip and fall accidents and that the store simply retained the footage of the actual fall in Bright’s particular circumstance. [...]

Therefore, the record contains no video evidence indicating when or if someone spilled anything on the floor prior to Bright’s fall. The only evidence in the record which indicates length of time is Bright’s deposition testimony. When asked if anything indicated how long the substance had been there, she testified that there was a little dust on the drops which indicated to her that it had to be there “for a little while.” [...]

Plaza filed a motion for summary judgment asking the trial court to find that Bright had failed to establish that Plaza had actual or constructive notice of any substance on the floor that may have caused Bright’s injuries. Bright opposed the motion arguing she was entitled to a spoliation inference because Plaza had intentionally erased the video footage depicting what had transpired prior to and after her fall. Plaza replied to the opposition by contending that Bright failed to show that the store had engaged in bad faith, malicious, or fraudulent conduct, which is a prerequisite to the application of a spoliation inference. In a Memorandum Opinion, dated June 11, 2007, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaza, holding that Bright failed to provide sufficient evidence that Plaza knew or should have known of the substance on the floor and failed to demonstrate fraud or deceit that would permit deliberation on the availability of the spoliation inference. Bright timely filed her Notice of Appeal… [...]

On appeal, Bright contends that Plaza’s destruction of the surveillance video establishes constructive notice because it permits a jury to infer that the video would have shown that the liquid was on the floor long enough for Plaza to have discovered it prior to her fall. According to Bright, the adverse inference created by Plaza’s destruction of the tape defeats summary judgment. Plaza contends that Bright is not entitled to a spoliation inference, and that even if she was, common law precludes the use of a spoliation inference to substitute for actual evidence supporting constructive notice. According to Plaza, a spoliation inference is improper where the evidentiary destruction was a matter of routine and was devoid of any fraudulent intent, and the inference cannot be utilized to establish an essential element of a negligence claim. [...]

There is no dispute in this matter that the recorded surveillance footage was at all times within the exclusive possession and control of Plaza. The parties dispute, however, whether there was an actual suppression or withholding of evidence. Bright argues that Plaza intentionally destroyed the recorded surveillance footage in order to conceal evidence which was unfavorable to Plaza. Plaza argues that as a regular course of business, the store only maintains the relevant footage of any recorded fall. Therefore, according to Plaza, the failure to retain footage of the time preceding and following the fall was neither fraudulent nor intentional. The trial court found that “Bright offer[ed] no evidence that Plaza … attempted to perpetrate a fraud or that Plaza’s conduct was anything other than a matter of routine.” (App. at 12-13.) The evidence, however, belies the trial court’s determination. [...]

During his deposition, Plaza’s manager testified that he retained only the portion of the surveillance footage which captured Bright’s fall. (App.211-12.) The manager’s conscious and intentional choice not to review or retain the recorded footage prior to or after the fall resulted in the destruction of relevant evidence. [...]

We find this case to be very analogous to Stevenson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir.2004). In analyzing a routine document retention policy, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Gumbs test and held that the trial court did not abuse it discretion in permitting a spoliation inference as a sanction for the defendant’s pre-litigation destruction of a voice recording. Id. at 747-48. Similar to Plaza, the Stevenson defendant learned of the accident shortly after it occurred and began his investigation immediately thereafter, but failed to take the steps necessary to preserve the recorded evidence. Also like Plaza, the Stevenson defendant had previously been involved in several accidents and knew that such recorded evidence would be relevant to any potential litigation. FN1 Additionally, Bright, like the Stevenson plaintiff, was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence because there is virtually no other evidence establishing the dispositive issue. In concluding that fraudulent intent was present, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that the case “tests the limits of what [the court is] able to uphold as a bad faith determination.” Id. Nevertheless, the particular circumstances present in that case, which were similar to those present in the case before this Court, warranted a spoliation inference.

FN1:Remarkably, in another case currently before this Court, Plaza’s management applied a different procedure in determining what portion of a recorded slip and fall accident to retain. In Williams v. Plaza Extra, S.Ct. Civ. No.2007/118, where the recorded surveillance footage appeared to vindicate Plaza, management retained a large portion of the footage, including footage from depicting a custodian cleaning the area twelve minutes prior to the fall and several minutes of footage after the fall. The fall in Williams occurred in the same store on April 8, 2002, nearly two years before the fall at issue in this case. [...]

While this Court does not find any statutory or case law indicating precisely what portion of surveillance footage capturing a slip and fall accident should be retained, common sense dictates the retention of comprehensive surveillance footage of any accident, including a reasonable period of time preceding and following the accident.

Bright v. United Corp., 2008 WL 2971769 (V.I. July 22, 2008).

Case Blurb: Morris; Data Retention Policies and Adverse Inferences

In accord with its pretrial ruling, the district court gave the following instruction to the jury during the course of the trial:

You’ve heard evidence that there was an audio tape recording of communications made by railroad employees over their radios, including the communications between the railroad dispatcher and the employees on the train in Waldo. The tape was erased about 90 days after the accident because Union Pacific Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searcheshas a policy to reuse it’s [sic] audio voice tapes and it is usual procedure to record over the tapes after 90 days. However, this court found in another hearing or a previous hearing that Union Pacific should not have re-recorded this tape pursuant to its policy but should have saved the tape because it was on notice that a serious injury had occurred and it knew there was a possibility that a lawsuit would follow the injury. Because Union Pacific destroyed the information on the tape when it should have kept the information, you may, you may, infer that there was information in the recorded communications that would have proved damaging to Union Pacific or helpful to John Morris.

Relying on this adverse inference instruction, counsel for Morris argued extensively to the jury that it should infer evidence damaging to Union Pacific from the missing audiotape. Among the inferences suggested were that dispatchers at Union Pacific headquarters in Omaha directed the crew to move the train notwithstanding the crew’s protest that it could not be done safely, that train movement was rushed because dispatchers were concerned about train traffic, and that the train crew made admissions during spontaneous chatter between the crew and dispatchers following the accident. There was no direct evidence of these facts introduced at trial, and members of the train crew disputed them. Counsel also emphasized to the jury that Union Pacific was “destroying evidence,” which it was “not supposed to do.”

An adverse inference instruction is a powerful tool in a jury trial. When giving such an instruction, a federal judge brands one party as a bad actor, guilty of destroying evidence that it should have retained for use by the jury. It necessarily opens the door to a certain degree of speculation by the jury, which is admonished that it may infer the presence of damaging information in the unknown contents of an erased audiotape. As the district court in this case put it colloquially, “it’s like cow crap; the more you step in it, the more it stinks.” One distinguished court years ago cautioned against use of an adverse inference instruction like the one given in this case (there, involving an absent witness rather than missing evidence), because “the jury should not be encouraged to base its verdict on what it speculates the absent witness would have testified to, in the absence of some direct evidence.”

Presumably cognizant of these factors, our court in Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004), recently clarified what circumstances justify the sanction of an adverse inference instruction. Stevenson specifically addressed the pre-litigation destruction of documents pursuant to Union Pacific document retention policy. While acknowledging that dicta in Lewy had articulated a “knew or should have known” negligence standard for imposition of the sanction, we ultimately rejected that approach, and held that “there must be a finding of intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth” before an adverse inference instruction is justified. Id. at 746. Though observing that the case before it “tested the limits of what we are able to uphold as a bad faith determination,” the Stevenson court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Union Pacific acted with the requisite intent to destroy evidence for the purpose of suppressing evidence. Id. at 747-48.

The district court in this case did not have the benefit of the clarification in Stevenson that a finding of intent is required to impose the sanction of an adverse inference instruction. In light of Stevenson, we conclude that the adverse instruction was not proper in this case.

The most important consideration in our analysis is the district court’s own finding regarding Union Pacific’s intent. The district court specifically concluded that Union Pacific “did not intentionally destroy the tape.” (Addendum at 12). This does not strike us as a casual or off-handed finding. The district court acknowledged that “historically, spoliation only arose from the intentional destruction of evidence, and therefore a finding that the spoliator intentionally destroyed the evidence was a prerequisite to prevail in a motion for sanctions for spoliation.” (emphasis in original). Only after reaching the understandable conclusion, based on our court’s opinion in Lewy, that “a finding of no intent is no longer dispositive of the issue” did the district court rule that Union Pacific should be sanctioned for destroying the audiotape.

Morris v. Union Pac. R.R., 373 F.3d 896, 900-901 (8th Cir. Ark. 2004).

Case Blurb: Kelley; Rule for Adverse Inference, 1st Circuit

When a document relevant to an issue in a case is destroyed, the trier of fact sometimes may infer that the party who obliterated it did so out of a realization that the contents were unfavorable. Before such an inference may be drawn, there must be a sufficient foundational showing that the party who destroyed the document had notice both of the potential claim and of the document’s potential relevance. Even then, the adverse inference is permissive, not mandatory. If, for example, the factfinder believes that the documents were destroyed accidently or for an innocent reason, then the factfinder is free to reject the inference.

****

When evidence indicates that a party is aware of circumstances that are likely to give rise to future litigation and yet destroys potentially relevant records without a particularized inquiry, a factfinder may reasonably infer that the party probably did so because the records would harm its case.

Kelley v. United Airlines, 176 F.R.D. 422, 427-28 (D. Mass. 1997)

Case Blurb: Lowry Development LLC; Producing Party’s destruction of evidence and untruthful testimony warrant sanctions

In the exercise of my discretion in this matter, I have determined that the destruction of this computer occurred at a time [Producing Party] knew or should have known that the computer and the data it contained were part of the evidence in this case. [Producing Party]’s decision to discard the computer was not the product of simple negligence, and [Producing Party]’s untruthful testimony concerning the manner in which this computer was handled is sufficient to infer the necessary element of bad faith in connection with his actions. I am of the opinion that [Requesting Party] should be allowed to introduce evidence concerning the disposition of this computer and concerning Groves’s untruthful testimony about this matter.

The existence of a mutual mistake of fact in connection with the formation of the [Requesting Party] insurance contract is an issue on which Great American would ordinarily bear an extraordinary burden of proof. The jury’s decision on this issue will depend in substantial part on the credibility of [Producing Party]’s testimony, and the parties have recognized that should [Requesting Party] prevail on the defense of mutual mistake [Producing Party], would be liable to the plaintiff for his wind-related losses. In these circumstances, I find that the appropriate sanction for [Producing Party]’s destruction of the data contained in his computer is to ameliorate the effect of this loss of evidence by reducing [Requesting Party]’s burden of proof to a preponderance of the evidence. See: McGuire v. Sigma Coatings, Inc., 48 F.3d 902 (5th Cir.1995). I will so instruct the jury at the appropriate time.

Accordingly, I will grant [Requesting Party]’s motion for sanctions, and I will permit [Requesting Party] to elicit testimony and introduce other evidence related to the destruction of this evidence. After I have heard the evidence in the case, I will fashion an appropriate jury instruction concerning the inferences or conclusions the jury may draw from [Producing Party]’s actions, and [Requesting Party]’s burden of proof on the issue of mutual mistake will be to prove the facts necessary to establish this defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Lowry Dev., LLC, 2007 WL 4268776 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 30, 2007)

Case Blurb: Residential Funding Corp.; Finding that party acted with gross negligence or in bad faith sufficient that missing evidence harmful to movant

The district court’s finding that party acted with gross negligence or in bad faith with respect to discovery obligations is ordinarily sufficient to support finding that missing or destroyed evidence would have been harmful to the party. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002).

Case Blurb: Residential Funding Corp.; Negligence sufficient to establish culpable state of mind element for adverse inference instruction, 2nd circuit

The “culpable state of mind” factor required for adverse inference instruction based on breach of discovery obligation may be satisfied by showing of negligence, rather than bad faith or gross negligence. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002).

Case Blurb: Alcoa, Inc.; Elements to establish need for adverse inference instruction, 5th Circuit

A party seeking the sanction of an adverse inference instruction based upon spoliation of evidence must establish these elements:

• The party in control of the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed;
• The records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind;”
• The destroyed evidence was “relevant” to the party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.

Additionally, the Fifth Circuit only permits an adverse inference sanction against a destroyer of evidence upon a showing of “bad faith” or “bad conduct.”
For the spoliator to have a culpable state of mind, it must act with fraudulent intent and a desire to suppress the truth. Such a state of mind is not present where the destruction is a matter of routine or where employees have simply deleted emails b/c they had no legitimate business reason. When evidence is destroyed in bad faith, that fact alone is sufficient to demonstrate relevance. However, when the destruction is negligent, relevance must be proven by the party seeking sanctions. Some jurisdictions outside of the 5th Cir. merely require a “gross negligence standard, rather than the “bad faith” standard. Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Alcoa, Inc., 2006 WL 2583308 (M.D.La).