Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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.)
DEFENDANT’S SPOLIATION OF CRITICAL EVIDENCE NECESSITATES AN ORDER TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EXPERTS FROM TESTIFYING
The guiding California Supreme Court case controlling spoliation of evidence is Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1. In Cedars, plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action arising out of a birth injury. During discovery, the hospital was unable to locate key medical records pertaining to the birth. The plaintiff then filed a separate cause of action of intentional spoliation of evidence. The court began the opinion by noting the serious affront to justice that is caused by destroying evidence:
The intentional destruction of evidence is a grave affront to the cause of justice and deserves our unqualified condemnation. 18 Cal.4th1, 4.
In the opinion, although the court dispensed with a specific cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence, it confirmed the broad powers that the court has in dealing with issues such as are presented in this case.
Destroying evidence in response to a discovery request after litigation has commenced would surely be a misuse of discovery within the meaning of section 2023, as would such destruction in anticipation of a discovery request. The sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023 are potent.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
They include monetary sanctions, contempt sanctions, issue sanctions ordering that designated facts be taken as established or precluding the offending party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, evidence sanctions prohibiting the offending party from introducing designated matters into evidence, and terminating sanctions that include striking part or all of the pleadings, dismissing part or all of the action, or granting a default judgment against the offending party. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12).
In the present case, plaintiff requests that the court invoke its Supreme Court sanctioned and statutory power to issue sanctions ordering that designated facts be taken as established or precluding the offending party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, evidence sanctions prohibiting the offending party from introducing designated matters into evidence … Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 12. Specifically, it is requested that this court order that the defense is prohibited from calling any accident reconstruction experts. (See Part 6 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.