Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“Spoliation” is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence, in pending or future litigation. (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.) Spoliation undermines the search for truth and fairness by creating a false picture of the evidence before the trier of fact by destroying authentic evidence. (Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Super. Ct. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 9.)
The Discovery Act does not specifically prohibit the intentional destruction of relevant evidence (“spoliation”) before a lawsuit has been filed or before a discovery request. (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.4th 1414, 1419.) However, under California law, a party cannot destroy evidence “in response to a discovery request after litigation has commenced” or “in anticipation of a discovery request.” (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)
“While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)
Failure to act to prevent the destruction of potential evidence is equivalent to intentional destruction of evidence. (Id. at 1224; Coprich v. Super. Ct. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1089–1090.)
Civil discovery practices encourage lawyers to take charge of the client's evidence, including advising the client to preserve and maintain all relevant evidence, “not only because it is right for the client to do so but because the lawyers recognize that, even if the evidence is unfavorable, the negative inferences that would flow from its intentional destruction are likely to harm the client as much or more than the evidence itself.” (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 12-13.)
Generally speaking, when evidence has not been viewed or examined due to loss or destruction, “it may be impossible for the jury to meaningfully assess what role the missing evidence would have played.” (Cooper v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 876, 896.) “There will typically be no way of telling what precisely the evidence would have shown and how much it would have weighed in the spoliation victim's favor. Without knowing the content and weight of the spoliated evidence, it would be impossible for the jury to meaningfully assess what role the missing evidence would have played in the determination of the underlying action. The jury could only speculate as to what the nature of the spoliated evidence was and what effect it might have had on the outcome of the underlying litigation.” (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 14.)
Even where these facts are present, however, the trial court has broad discretion in imposing discovery sanctions. (Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1293.) In exercising this discretion, the court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)
To obtain sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence, the moving party must make an “initial prima facie showing that the responding party in fact destroyed evidence that had a substantial probability of damaging the moving party’s ability to establish an essential element of his claim or defense.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1227.) Once the moving party establishes this basis, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show lack of prejudice from the loss of the evidence. (Id.)
Absent the proof of egregious intentional alteration or destruction of evidence, two facts are prerequisite to the imposition of non-monetary sanctions:
(Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1102.)
“Discovery sanctions are intended to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1223.) The sanction must be appropriate to the dereliction and not a windfall to the propounding party. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) In other words, discovery sanctions should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the propounding party and the integrity of the judicial system. (Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1293.)
On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff Nevarez filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Trial is set for February 10, 2020. PART Y ’ S REQUEST Plaintiff Nevarez asks the Court to issue terminatin g sanctions against Defendants for their intentional spoliation of evidence.
SARA CHAVEZ NEVAREZ, ET AL. VS ZHENHUI HUANG, ET AL.
19STCV28734
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Sanctions for Willful Spoliation of Evidence Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against defendant California Department of Water Resources for willful spoliation of evidence is DENIED. Upon consideration of all papers filed by the parties, the Court does not find evidence of egregious, intentional spoliation of evidence meriting the severe sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, requested by plaintiffs.
SYLVIA RABAGO, ET AL. VS CALIF. DEPT OF PARKS AND REC, ET AL
CVM018880
May 04, 2018
Merced County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Ctr. the Supreme Court held that a tort action may not be brought against a party for intentional spoliation of evidence where the spoliation is discovered before trial. (Id. at pp. 17-18. The Court reasoned that there are a number of nontort remedies that seek to punish and deter the intentional spoliation of evidence including discovery laws that provide a broad range of sanctions for conduct that amounts to a “misuse of the discovery process”. (Id. at pp. 11-12.)
AKOP JACK ANANYAN VS SARKIS SEMIZYAN ET AL
BC655511
Aug 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that terminating sanctions should be issued as to the third, sixth, and seventh causes of action for sexual harassment, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay overtime causes of action on the grounds of intentional spoliation. Spoliation is the destruction or alteration of evidence. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd., (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 497; and see West v.
RIVAS VS. BOK SK, INC.
30-2019-01061026
Mar 12, 2020
Orange County, CA
By contrast, here, the evidence does not show intentional spoliation of evidence, and the alleged failure to preserve evidence, if at all, occurred before this lawsuit was even filed.
ORELLANA VS MORTON'S OF CHICAGO/PALM DESERT, INC.
CVPS2200669
Sep 29, 2023
Riverside County, CA
A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.
WIMBERLEY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2018-00058664-CU-WT-CTL
Sep 24, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff seeks issue, evidence, and monetary sanctions against Defendants for intentional spoliation of evidence, specifically the failure to retain footage from a surveillance camera at the apartment building showing how Plaintiff was injured. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff claims she was injured by a garage door on Defendants’ premises.
NORMA BORJAS MUNOZ VS BEVERLY CITY LIGHTS A BUSINESS ENTITY, ET AL.
18STCV03936
Oct 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.
MATTHEW BRAXTON CAGLE VS STEPHANIE RYE, ET AL.
20STCV25086
Oct 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” Id. Discovery sanctions are issued to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. Id. The sanctions should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct. Id.
JOYA VS M&H TRANSPORT, INC.
RIC2002819
Feb 05, 2022
Riverside County, CA
“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” Id. Discovery sanctions are issued to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. Id. The sanctions should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct. Id.
JOYA VS M&H TRANSPORT, INC.
RIC2002819
Feb 06, 2022
Riverside County, CA
“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” Id. Discovery sanctions are issued to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. Id. The sanctions should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct. Id.
JOYA VS M&H TRANSPORT, INC.
RIC2002819
Feb 07, 2022
Riverside County, CA
CONCLUSION The motion for sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Court will issue jury instruction CACI 204 pertaining to the intentional spoliation of the Explant device. The motion for sanctions is DENIED in all other regards. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED in its entirety.
PERRY PARKS ET AL VS WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL
BC552067
Dec 09, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Sanctions At this time, Plaintiffs move for terminating sanctions and/or various other sanctions, contending Defendants spoliated the videotape evidence of the accident. They contend the evidence is not complete, as it jumps around in time and does not depict key images of the parties’ accident. Law Governing Spoliation of Evidence The intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the litigation to which it is relevant is an unqualified wrong. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v.
ROXANE E SMITH ET AL VS CINDY YONG CHI
BC703634
Jul 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
This litigation also lacks the specific stipulation language regarding terminating sanctions discussed in Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, or the "egregious" conduct (intentional spoliation) in R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497. There is no showing that a lesser sanction would be futile as to the instant discovery. (see Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1548 and Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v.
IN THE MATTER OF THE THE FRIDA KOPPL TRUST ONE DATED 8/5/11 TRUST
PTR18302189
Jun 17, 2021
ELIF SONMEZ
San Francisco County, CA
This litigation also lacks the specific stipulation language regarding terminating sanctions discussed in Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, or the "egregious" conduct (intentional spoliation) in R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497. There is no showing that a lesser sanction would be futile as to the instant discovery. (see Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1548 and Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v.
IN THE MATTER OF THE THE FRIDA KOPPL TRUST ONE DATED 8/5/11 TRUST
PTR18302189
Jun 17, 2021
ELIF SONMEZ
San Francisco County, CA
Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215 held @ 1223 that intentional spoliation of evidence is a sanctionable misuse of discovery. For a terminating sanction to be used, the spoliation must be "egregious." Id. Sanctions are to remedy, not punish, discovery abuse and should not put the person in a better position than he would have been had he obtained the evidence. Id.
ERICKSON VS APRIL HEALTHCARE, LLC
30-2016-00841718-CU-PO-CJC
Dec 16, 2016
Orange County, CA
PARTIES’ REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to issue terminating, issue, and/or evidentiary sanctions against Defendants for their intentional spoliation of evidence. Defendants ask the Court to issue $32.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff for having to file this opposition. LEGAL STANDARD “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.
BEVERLY A GRAMLICH VS CARLOS ESCOBAR ET AL
BC720106
Sep 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, a terminating sanction for spoliation of evidence is “appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223, citation omitted & emphasis added; see also New Albertsons, Inc. v.
TIMOTHY AERY VS PETRELLI ELECTRIC, INC., ET AL.
20STCV00867
May 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The New Albertsons court acknowledged that the California Supreme Court “suggested, without holding, that a party’s intentional spoliation of evidence in anticipation of a discovery request . . . would be a misuse of discovery within the meaning of former section 2023, and seemed to suggest that the full range of discovery sanctions could be available.” (New Albertsons, Inc., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1428.)
GUDELIA GARCIA VS ROSS STORES INC
BC641608
Apr 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227—terminating sanction may be proper even where there has been no violation of a prior court order in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.)
PSC 1603097
Sep 11, 2017
Riverside County, CA
In the alternative, defendant requests terminating sanctions, evidentiary or issue sanctions, or monetary sanctions against plaintiff for intentional spoliation of evidence.
DESTINY HITCHCOCK VS SANDRA CASTELLINO ET AL
18CV04174
Jan 09, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227 There is no evidence of intentional spoliation. The manager of the restaurant, Xiangyi Lin, testified that a few days after the incident, he asked “Raymond” the person who installed and maintains the camera system, to preserve the video footage because he thought the situation was bad and they would need something for the record. Opposition, Ex. A 33:3-10. The only two clips produced to Xiangyi Lin, were the two produced to Plaintiff. Id. 37:19 – 38:18.
NANCY JABER ET AL VS SLZ GARDEN INC
BC699916
Apr 02, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
As the court in Cedars-Sinai explained, there are a number of nontort remedies that seek to punish and deter the intentional spoliation of evidence. Chief among these is the evidentiary inference that evidence which one party has destroyed or rendered unavailable was unfavorable to that party.
SAVI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. WACKPRO, INC., ET AL.
2014-1-CV-268149
Mar 01, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
In addition, a terminating sanction for spoliation of evidence is “appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223, citation omitted & emphasis added.). As noted above, Plaintiff has not established that Defendant intentionally destroyed, altered in a significant fashion, or failed to preserve, the video in question.
KEISHA JACKSON VS FAMILY DOLLAR INC ET AL
BC698915
Mar 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The trial court concluded that lesser sanctions would not cure the harm and that a terminating sanction was appropriate.” (Id. at 1433 [quoting Williams 167 Cal.App.4th at 1222.) As explained by the court in Williams, “A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams 167 Cal.App.4th at 1223 [citing R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497].)
AMERICAN/BCEGZ ET AL VS SHORES LLC ET AL
BC538363
Oct 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions Californias appellate court has recognized that a non-monetary sanction is usually best decided by the trial court. A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.
JOSE MARIACA, ET AL. VS BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV09377
Nov 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Such acts are inconsistent with the intentional spoliation for which Plaintiff now seeks sanctions, particularly when Plaintiff had access to the phone and relevant text messages. (Estive Decl. ¶¶ 78.) The balance of this evidence militates against the award of sanctions for misuse of discovery against either party here.
CHANTAL G. ESTIVE VS AGUSTIN QUIROZ
22STCV13404
Aug 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On appeal, the court held “[a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Id. at p. 1223.)
YOLANDA BARBA VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY INC
BC712688
Nov 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Sanctions Terminating, Issue or Evidentiary “A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223 (“Williams”) (Emphasis added.).)
PLEAU VS. ESTATE OF FELBER
CV18-00029
Jul 09, 2018
Plumas County, CA
Mainsheet Capital Inc 12/13/2023 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53 court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (R.S. Creative, Inc., supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at 497.) This is not an egregious case of intentional spoliation. Based upon the evidence presented on this motion, it is not a case of intentional spoliation at all. Thus, the requested sanctions are entirely inappropriate.
HARBOR DISTRIBUTING LLC VS. MAINSHEET CAPITAL INC
34-2020-00279721-CU-BT-GDS
Dec 12, 2023
Sacramento County, CA
In addition, a sanction for spoliation of evidence is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence. ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223, citation omitted & emphasis added; see also New Albertsons, Inc. v.
REBECCA SCHERER VS DOUGLAS EMMETT, ET AL.
19STCV20310
Apr 06, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, this is not an egregious case of intentional spoliation of evidence that warrants the imposition of terminating or evidentiary sanctions absent violation of a prior court order. Plaintiff also has not shown that the destroyed evidence is essential to prove any element of its claims.
BULWER DRIVE LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC567318
Jan 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17 held that there is no tort remedy for intentional destruction of evidence by a litigating party, and that stated that other, nontort remedies available for intentional spoliation, including particularly the evidentiary inference provided by Evidence Code section 413 and discovery sanctions under former section 2023, were sufficient to deter intentional spoliation and protect the spoliation victim. Cedars-Sinai at 11-13.
REDMAN VS B E MCCARTY
56-2012-00420588-CU-PA-VTA
May 07, 2013
Ventura County, CA
As such, spoliation is considered a “misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.” (Ibid., citing Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2023.030, subds. (a)-(d); Cedars–Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.) Moreover, such sanctions may be obtained even in the absence of a violation of a prior court order, in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.
MARTA DE GARCIA VS EASTRIDGE SHOPPING CENTER LLC ET AL
16CV301879
Feb 14, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
A lthough aware that sanctions should ordinarily be progressive and that lesser sanctions should be considered before dismissal, the court found dismissal was warranted. This was based on the findings made above, and findings that Williams had a duty to maintain the client file and had the burden of proving no prejudice occurred, and that intentional spoliation raised an inference of extreme prejudice.
TAMARA ABRAAMIAN BOUKHANIAN VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.
19STCV31361
Jan 24, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
As such, the Court finds that evidentiary sanctions are warranted. The motion for terminating and issue sanctions is DENIED. The motion for evidence sanctions is GRANTED. The Court will issue jury instruction CACI 204 pertaining to the intentional spoliation of the subject vehicle device. To the extent that Plaintiffs have conducted their own forensic inspection of the subject vehicle prior to its disposal, the Court excludes any such evidence.
JACINTO TALAMANTE ET AL VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC
BC616822
Feb 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant challenges any assertion of intentional spoliation. Plaintiff in reply denies “actual knowledge or notice” of the rollercoaster dismantling prior to the request for an inspection. Plaintiff asserts that the allowed inspection was insufficient, as the expert was denied access to the physical area, and was forced to observe from a distance or use of a drone for an aerial inspection.
TALIA WISE VS SIX FLAGS ET AL
BC679307
Feb 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
He argues that in the face of a Court order requiring production of swipe card data, the continuing application of Defendants’ document retention policy to this data is tantamount to intentional spoliation. He therefore seeks terminating sanctions for intentional spoliation of evidence. Ortiz relies on Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215.
ABARCA VS. AKASH MANAGEMENT, LLC
18-01036452
Nov 12, 2021
Orange County, CA
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Martha Morrison’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $5,200 and for Discovery and Other Sanctions Against Defendant Roger’s Gardens Newport Beach for Intentional Spoliation of Evidence (ROA 29, filed 8/7/20) is DENIED. This case arises out of injuries suffered by Plaintiff when she allegedly slipped on an uneven floor surface at Roger’s Gardens caused by the placement of rubber mats with gaps between them.
MORRISON VS. ROGER’S GARDENS OF NEWPORT BEACH
30-2019-01114940
Nov 03, 2020
Orange County, CA
“While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v.
JOSE MANUEL PRUDENCIO ALCAZAR ET AL VS CHAD DAVIS WAGENMAN E
BC680937
Apr 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, a terminating sanction for spoliation of evidence is “appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223, citation omitted & emphasis added; see also New Albertsons, Inc. v.
TESS BERNARDO VS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV43939
Sep 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
[Citation] While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. [Citations] A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence. [Citation] ( Williams v.
HELENE G SAKELLIS VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
BC653918
Jan 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Monetary sanctions are DENIED. Based on the evidence presented, the Court does not find that Southland is engaged in the intentional spoliation of evidence, or is improperly withholding evidence.
ANTHONY RANGEL OROZCO VS SOUTHLAND TRANSIT, INC., ET AL.
23NWCV01042
Dec 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On appeal, the court held “[a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence." (Id. at p. 1223.)
SANTIAGO CASTILLA VS NIJAR REALTY INC ET AL
BC683775
Jun 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
In Cedars-Sinai , the Supreme Court held that a tort action may not be brought against a party for intentional spoliation of evidence where the spoliation is discovered before trial, in part because non-tort remedies are available, including discovery sanctions (CCP § 2023.030) and jury instructions (Evid. Code § 413). Id.
DAVON DEAN, ET AL. VS JANET TAYLOR, ET AL.
20TRCP00101
May 25, 2022
Timothy Lee Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, to the extent the motion for sanctions is premised on Plaintiff’s violation of a prior order, the motion is denied. The intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the litigation to which it is relevant is an unqualified wrong. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17.) Although separate tort causes of action for spoliation of evidence do not exist, there are effective non-tort remedies for this wrong.
THOMAS HILT VS ANDY GUMP INC ET AL
BC669916
Nov 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. ( Id. ) A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence .
AIDAN SCIANDRA, ET AL. VS CHRONICPRACTOR CAREGIVER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV19331
Jan 19, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
[Citation] While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. [Citation] A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.
HADLEY VS. BELLA KITCHEN BATH AND FLOORING
30-2019-01089552
Aug 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
The Court of Appeal has stated: A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.
DANIEL HECTOR MONTIEL VS XAVIER TRENTON HOLLAND, ET AL.
21STCV18978
May 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the Court finds defendant Music Express through the actions (and inaction) of its insurer is responsible for intentional spoliation of the evidence at issue. In so finding, the Court recognizes the spoliation of evidence here occurred prior to the case having been filed and (obviously) before any court order concerning such evidence could be obtained.
CAROLINA BARLOW VS JACOB ESPINOSA, ET AL.
19STCV18096
Jun 23, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Respondent Allied requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,075. Mason Decl. ¶¶ 13-16. The Supreme Court has declined to recognize a tort for first party intentional spoliation of evidence, opining that sufficient remedies are afforded by the evidentiary inference of Evidence Code § 413 and discovery remedies (CCP § 2023.010 et seq.). Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17; see also Temple Community Hospital v.
ANDREW C VS BERTRAND A MARCANO MD ET AL
BC558076
Nov 15, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
There is no tort liability for intentional spoliation of evidence committed by a party to the action to which the evidence is relevant and which is, or reasonably should have been, discovered by the spoliation victim (opposing party) before conclusion of the underlying action. (Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17–18 [defendant in medical malpractice action allegedly destroyed plaintiff's medical records].)
TRISTAN TAYLOR ET AL VS JOSEPH'S CAFE INC ET AL
BC552895
Oct 12, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
On appeal, the court held “[a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence." (Id. at p. 1223.) (See also Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v.
MARIA GUADALUPE MEDINA VS TOOFER ENTERPRISES INC
BC632356
Jul 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In Cedars-Sinai, the Supreme Court held that a tort action may not be brought against a party for intentional spoliation of evidence where the spoliation is discovered before trial, in part because non-tort remedies are available, including discovery sanctions (CCP § 2023.030) and jury instructions (Evid. Code § 413).
EVILY CASTELLANOS ET AL VS ERNESTO ORELLANA QUINONEZ ET AL
BC683177
Dec 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
( Ibid . ) [T]he intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced constitutes a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions, and [a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence. ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)
GABRIEL R. SANCHEZ VS KASRA MIZBAN, ET AL.
21STCV02647
Jan 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
“While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v.
EVAN WEISSMAN ET AL VS MILK STUDIOS LOS ANGELES LLC
BC664336
Apr 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
[Citation] While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. [Citations] A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence. [Citation]” (Williams v.
SONIA NARANJO VS WALMART INC
BC713240
Jul 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223, citing R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497.)
JARRETT GEYER VS. BARBARA TRUMBLE
18CECG04547
Oct 18, 2022
Fresno County, CA
Russ , which Defendant relies upon, in which the trial court was held to have sufficient evidence to make a finding of a malpractice plaintiffs intentional spoliation of his client file, when the following facts were presented: Within weeks of obtaining the file from Russ, Williams's lawyer warned Slyngstad that he found evidence in the file to support new claims and soon after amended the complaint accordingly.
DANNY LUNA, ET AL. VS WALTER TIMMONS ENTERPRISES, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV25905
Aug 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Generally, two facts are prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions: (1) there must be a failure to comply with a court order; and (2) the failure must be willful. ( Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) However, [a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence. ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.) DISCUSSION a.
CJ FRESHWAY AMERICA CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS KALDEA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV01929
Jan 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The facts here do not show an egregious intentional spoliation of evidence. (See, Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1224) The facts can be decided and any appropriate inference can be made by the trier of fact after a full hearing at trial. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1431; Evid. Code § 413) (2) MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT by cross-defendant Contec, Inc. is DENIED.
MORENA VS SERVPRO INDUSTRIES INC
37-2016-00008427-CU-PO-CTL
Jul 06, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
"In a relatively recent case, the Supreme Court recognized that the act of intentional spoliation of evidence is an "unqualified wrong." However, pointing out the difficult and speculative nature of proving what the destroyed evidence would have shown, and also noting the costs of meritless litigation, it declined to allow recovery in tort. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 17.)" The MEGA Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 172 Cal. App. 4th at 1528.
ROBERT VON SCHNEIDAU VS. RETRO SBK, INC
56-2009-00364472-CU-BC-VTA
May 05, 2010
Ventura County, CA
In Williams, the Court of Appeal recognized that “[a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1223, emphasis added.) Williams does not stand for the proposition that terminating sanctions are appropriate without a violation of prior court orders where a party has withheld evidence.
SIA AMBER SOUTHERN VS TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CO
BC690804
Feb 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Spoliation of evidence, which is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence or failure to preserve evidence, constitutes a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary or terminating sanctions. (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1223.) In cases of intentional spoliation, a terminating sanction may be warranted in the first instance without a prior court order. (Ibid.)
JACKSON VS SAN JACINTO INN
CVRI2204326
Dec 04, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Spoliation of evidence, which is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence or failure to preserve evidence, constitutes a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary or terminating sanctions. (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1223.) In cases of intentional spoliation, a terminating sanction may be warranted in the first instance without a prior court order. (Ibid.)
JACKSON VS SAN JACINTO INN
CVRI2204326
Dec 03, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Spoliation of evidence, which is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence or failure to preserve evidence, constitutes a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary or terminating sanctions. (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1223.) In cases of intentional spoliation, a terminating sanction may be warranted in the first instance without a prior court order. (Ibid.)
JACKSON VS SAN JACINTO INN
CVRI2204326
Dec 02, 2023
Riverside County, CA
In Cedars-Sinai , the Supreme Court held that a tort action may not be brought against a party for intentional spoliation of evidence where the spoliation is discovered before trial, in part because non-tort remedies are available, including discovery sanctions (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030) and jury instructions (Evid.
GILMA FELIPE, ET AL. VS FEDERAL BUILDING SERVICES, ET AL.
19AVCV00471
Jul 19, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court will invite argument at the hearing as to whether there is any evidence or indication of intentional spoliation of the Quickbooks report. C. Sanctions Defendants assert that Plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to produce the QuickBooks files in the amount of $2,000 because it argues that it is undisputed that the documents are in Zoukis possession, custody, and control. In opposition, Plaintiff notes that the bases for this belief is from Mr.
20TRCV00302¿
May 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215,1223 [“[a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence”].) Spoliation occurs when evidence is destroyed or significantly altered or when there is a failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in current or future litigation. ( Hernandez v. Garcetti (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 675, 680.)
AMERICAN/BCEGZ ET AL VS SHORES LLC ET AL
BC538363
Jul 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
PARTY’S REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to order either: (1) an issue sanction establishing that no delineators were present at or around the offset at the time of Plaintiff’s crash, (2) an evidentiary sanction precluding Cross-Defendant/Defendant Shawnan Corporation’s (“Shawnan”) Safety Officer John Smith from testifying about observations made or photographs taken of delineators on April 10, 2017, or (3) allow a jury instruction for intentional spoliation of evidence against Shawnan.
SARA VARES AUGUSTO VS LA COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANS AUTHORITY
BC683243
Nov 27, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
"A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence." ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)
MARIE MCGINNIS VS RICHARD GABRIEL, ET AL.
19STCV24948
Dec 30, 2020
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendants’ filed a motion for sanctions due to intentional spoliation of evidence on August 22, 2016. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ expert, William Greene, applied paint to the key piece of evidence in the case, the allegedly faulty medical implant, as part of a method whereby he created a 3D computer model of the implant.
PERRY PARKS ET AL VS WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL
BC552067
Jan 13, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The court finds Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence of Defendant’s intentional spoliation of evidence, and suppression of discoverable evidence. The actions of Defendant are so egregious, less severe sanctions would be futile because the evidence was destroyed and tampered with, and Defendant attempted to intimidate Plaintiffs throughout the discovery process. Furthermore, Defendant did not file an opposition refuting any of the assertions made by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
JOHN RD DOE ET AL VS HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS INC ET AL
BC700918
Jun 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Because the evidence does not indicate intentional spoliation, sanctions are not warranted. The facts here are distinguishable from cases where terminating sanctions were imposed. (See, e.g. , R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497 [plaintiffs had incorporated a forged contract in their complaint, had refused to allow the completion of a principal's deposition after the forgery came to light, and had destroyed evidence].)
JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., ET AL.
20STCV03170
May 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court stated, A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.
KELLY LISA RIPLEY VS SMART AND FINAL STORES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV13516
Jan 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence . ( R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd . (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 353].) Discovery sanctions are intended to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party.
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS LISETT C. GONZALEZ
21STCV38708
May 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223, internal citations omitted.) Here, defendant moves for an evidence sanction excluding plaintiff’s expert, Mr.
SMARTMED, INC. VS. FIRSTCHOICE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
18CECG00374
Jun 15, 2022
Fresno County, CA
[V]iolation of a discovery order is not a prerequisite to issue and evidentiary sanctions when the offending party has engaged in a pattern of willful discovery abuse that causes the unavailability of evidence. ( Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4 th 1202, 1215.) In Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, the Supreme Court declined to recognize a separate tort cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence.
ERIKA RAMIREZ VS MADISON MAE REED, ET AL.
20STCV11567
Sep 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
[Citation] While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. [Citations] A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” ( Williams v.
JUAN ANTONIO LOPEZ BELTRAN VS JULIE ANNA HOPKINS SORENSON, ET AL.
20STCV02633
Aug 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Spoliation is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment including monetary, evidentiary, issue, and terminating sanctions. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 12.) In fact, “[a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1223.)
THOMAS MOIOFFER VS FIRST ENTERTAINMENT CREDIT UNION, ET AL.
18STCV04727
Oct 02, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215,1223 [“[a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence”].) Spoliation occurs when evidence is destroyed or significantly altered or when there is a failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in current or future litigation. ( Hernandez v. Garcetti (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 675, 680.)
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL, LLC. VS LUTHER LINTON, ET AL.
20STCV42456
Oct 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the litigation to which it is relevant is an unqualified wrong. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17.) Although separate tort causes of action for spoliation of evidence do not exist, there are effective non-tort remedies for this wrong. “Chief among these is the evidentiary inference that evidence which one party has destroyed or rendered unavailable was unfavorable to that party.”
EDILBERTO RUIZ JR VS JOHNS ENMANUEL LAGUNA SALVADOR, ET AL.
19STCV32297
Jan 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the litigation to which it is relevant is an unqualified wrong. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17.) Although separate tort causes of action for spoliation of evidence do not exist, there are effective non-tort remedies for this wrong. “Chief among these is the evidentiary inference that evidence which one party has destroyed or rendered unavailable was unfavorable to that party.”
NNAJUGO JUDE NWOSU VS BENNYS TACOS & ROTISSERIE/SANTA MONICA, LLC
19STCV01703
Jan 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
For the evidentiary inference to apply, all that must be proven is intentional spoliation. (Evid. Code, § 413 [inference may be drawn based on willful suppression of evidence].)
ASHA DUSBABEK VS RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV20848
Jan 05, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff requests that terminating sanctions be entered against Defendant in the form of striking its answer and entering judgment for Plaintiff. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests issue and evidentiary sanctions precluding Defendant from disputing liability in this action, or a jury instruction that a negative inference should be drawn from Defendants intentional spoliation of evidence.
ARTVAHE AREKERIANS VS WHOLE FOODS MARKET
19STCV28519
Nov 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
"A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence." ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)
MARIE MCGINNIS VS RICHARD GABRIEL, ET AL.
19STCV24948
Dec 16, 2020
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
"A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence." (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)
CHUCKRID HUTAYANA VS YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF
BC696346
Nov 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
However, a discovery sanction may be appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence, or where it is reasonably clear that first obtaining such an order would be futile. (Ibid.; Williams v. Russ, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1223.)
OWSTON V. PACIFIC ADVENTURE TOURS
16CV-0171
Sep 20, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Defendants request an alternative Motion for Adverse Inference, asking the Court for an instruction directing the jury to draw an adverse inference against Plaintiff for intentional spoliation of evidence. (Evid. Code, § 413; CACI 204.) In rejecting a tort cause of action for intentional spoilation of evidence, our state supreme court endorsed an adverse inference jury instruction as an appropriate nontort remedy. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 11.)
ZHAI VS THOUSAND OAKS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS INC
RG20069643
Jan 11, 2024
Alameda County, CA
Spoliation is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment including monetary, evidentiary, issue, and terminating sanctions. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 12.) In fact, “[a] terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1223.)
STOP TOXIC HOUSING IN PASADENA, INC. VS DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ET AL.
19STCP04909
Jun 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
¿¿[Citation]¿While¿there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.¿¿[Citations]¿A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.¿¿[Citation.] ( Williams v.
JESSICA MAGEE VS CAST PARTS, INC., ET AL.
20STCV36225
May 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence. ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223 [citations omitted].)
FADI ALMAZAHREH VS FLORENTINO RICO, ET AL.
19STCV33906
Aug 23, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(Id. at 1223 (“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.”).) However, where there is no violation of a prior discovery order, such sanctions should be reserved for “egregious misconduct.” (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426.)
ALVIN TATE VS FCA US LLC ET AL
BC574630
Jul 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
As Defendant recognizes, “the appropriate remedy for spoliation of evidence is sanctions.” (Motion at p. 8.) In Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v.
KEVIN SCOTT ADLER VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., A BUSINESS ENTITY, ET AL.
19STCV13279
Aug 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Court notes that [s]poliation of evidence means the destruction or significant alteration of evidence or the failure to preserve evidence for anothers use in pending or future litigation& A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence . ( Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223 .) Boror also contends that Bravo should have the burden of proof on this motion. In Williams v.
MIRNA BOROR VS ROSA BRAVO, ET AL.
19STCV35232
Jul 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
) “ While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.” ( Id. ) Terminating sanctions are appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court order in “egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” ( Id. [emphasis added].)
VALERIE FLORES, AN INCOMPETENT PERSON, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, NELLY O. CABALLERO VS CITY OF BURBANK, A PUBLIC ENTITY
19STCV02043
Mar 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
There is no tort liability for intentional spoliation of evidence committed by a party to the action to which the evidence is relevant and which is, or reasonably should have been, discovered by the spoliation victim, before conclusion of the underlying action. ( Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17-18.) Nor is a tort remedy available for negligent spoliation committed by a party to the action. ( Coprich v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1081, 10891090.)
KRYSTAL SHIN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
22STCV23442
Aug 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v. Russ, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1223.) In such cases, it may be proper to shift the burden of proof in the context of a discovery sanctions motion.
XUEHUA WANG, ET AL. V. ART OF REFLEXOLOGY MILPITAS, LLC, ET AL.
2015-1-CV-283659
Jun 05, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
In Cedars-Sinai , the Supreme Court held that a tort action may not be brought against a party for intentional spoliation of evidence where the spoliation is discovered before trial, in part because non-tort remedies are available, including discovery sanctions (CCP § 2023.030) and jury instructions (Evid. Code § 413). Id.
DAVON DEAN, ET AL. VS JANET TAYLOR, ET AL.
20TRCP00101
Sep 15, 2022
Timothy Lee Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
There is no tort liability for intentional spoliation of evidence committed by a party to the action to which the evidence is relevant and which is, or reasonably should have been, discovered by the spoliation victim, before conclusion of the underlying action. ( Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court , supra , 18 Cal.4th at pp. 17-18.) Nor is a tort remedy available for negligent spoliation committed by a party to the action. ( Coprich v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1081, 10891090.)
MATTHEW S. GARZA VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLLOYD'S OF LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO THE SUBJECT POLICY, ET AL.
22STCV11454
Feb 05, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.