Two Recent Spoliation Rulings Impose Severe Sanctions

Publication Source: New York Law Journal

Courts have long grappled with how to deal with the situation where a party loses or destroys essential evidence before or during litigation. The legal doctrine is known as spoliation, and courts have imposed sanctions from the most drastic remedy of outright dismissal, to adverse inferences, to preclusion of evidence. As discussed below, two recent Nassau County decisions imposed severe sanctions in non-traditional spoliation contexts, providing additional notice to parties and their counsel to be vigilant and proactive, both before and during litigation, in preserving potential evidence.

Spoliation Doctrine

Federal courts describe spoliation as 'the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.'¹ In federal court, the determination of an appropriate sanction for spoliation, if any, is left 'to the sound discretion of the trial judge, . . . assessed on a case-by-case basis.'²

Similarly, in state court, 'where a party destroys essential physical evidence' such that its opponents are ''prejudicially bereft of appropriate means to confront a claim with incisive evidence,' the spoliator may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading.'³ The state courts do acknowledge, however, that 'the striking of a pleading is a drastic sanction that is warranted as a matter of elemental fairness . . . . Where the evidence lost is not central to the case or its destruction is not prejudicial, a lesser sanction, or no sanction, may be appropriate.'⁴ Moreover, the court 'may, under appropriate circumstances, impose a sanction 'even if the destruction occurred through negligence rather than willfulness, and even if the evidence was destroyed before the spoliator became a party, provided [the party] . . . was on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation.'⁵

As in federal court, the trial court 'has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanctions should be imposed for spoliation of evidence⁶ . . . .' Issues of spoliation appear often in personal injury cases, and specifically products liability actions, where a particular product or instrumentality alleged to have caused personal injuries is lost or destroyed.⁷

Read the full article in the attached PDF.

-----

Kevin Schlosser is a Shareholder at Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., where he is Chair of the Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Department which has a full roster of available private judges from virtually all disciplines of law. Mr. Schlosser also authors the popular blog, “New York Fraud Claims,” which analyzes the latest developments concerning civil fraud claims under New York law.

Reprinted with permission by the New York Law Journal.