The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
It is anticipated that the defendant will claim that the destruction of the vehicle was accidental or non-intentional. Even if the court finds that defendant Brown’s spoliation of evidence was inadvertent, the court should still grant plaintiff’s requests for evidentiary sanctions: where a party inadvertently destroys evidence, the court may issue sanctions intended to level the playing field or even up the score. Puritan Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.App.3rd 877, 883-884. In this case, an expert witness inadvertently lost a failed drive shaft. The court reviewed numerous early California authorities and determined that, None of these authorities suggests a willfulness requirement for violations of subdivision (b)(2). Puritan Ins. Co., 1717 Cal.App.3rd at 884.
In Galanek v. Wismar (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1427, the court properly shifted the burden of proving lack of causation to the defendant attorney who negligently permitted a storage facility to destroy a defective automobile before either party could perform an inspection. The destruction of evidence made it impossible for plaintiff to prove that defendant’s negligence was the cause of her losses. (Ibid.) In addition, there is no intentional standard set forth in section 2023.030, merely that such sanctions can be issued against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Destroying key evidence under the facts as outlined above is surely a misuse of the discovery process.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The destruction of evidence made it impossible for plaintiff to prove that defendant’s negligence was the cause of her losses. (Ibid.) In addition, there is no intentional standard set forth in section 2023.030, merely that such sanctions can be issued against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Destroying key evidence under the facts as outlined above is surely a “misuse of the discovery process.” (See Part 7 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.