Spoliation of Evidence Can Have Consequences

Many people understand that destruction of evidence related to a criminal investigation can have dire consequences.  Indeed, individuals who destroy documents and items relevant to a criminal investigation may find themselves in criminal trouble themselves.  However, spoliation of evidence (which is just a legal term for destruction of evidence) during a civil lawsuit can also have a number of consequences for the party guilty of spoliating evidence.

Consequences of Spoliation

Parties who are found guilty of spoliating evidence relevant to a civil lawsuit can face a number of negative consequences.  If it is established that a party had notice that evidence would be relevant to an existing or potential lawsuit, judges have a number of penalties at their disposal when deciding to punish a party for destroying evidence.  The most common penalty for spoliation of evidence is an adverse inference charge.  This basically means that a finder of fact, like a jury, is entitled to take a negative inference against a party because that party destroyed evidence.  In addition, a judge may make it harder for a party to prosecute or defend a claim because of spoliation.  For instance, a judge may determine that a party cannot deny that certain elements of a cause of action have been established because the other party has made it difficult to prove this element because relevant evidence had been destroyed.

In extreme cases, judges can even hold that a party wins or loses a case by default because of spoliation of evidence.  This penalty is reserved for extreme examples when a party can’t prove or defend a case because the evidence has been destroyed, and the destruction of evidence was willful.  Although this penalty is extremely rare, these lesser penalties may be important to winning or losing a case.  Even though many different types of evidence are spolitated in lawsuits, some categories of evidence are destroyed most often.

Surveillance Footage

Spoliation of evidence often occurs with surveillance footage.  Sometimes, if surveillance footage is destroyed as a result of a routine practice or procedure, this will not be considered spoliation of evidence.  Many stores and other establishments have policies to destroy surveillance footage after a certain amount of time in order to make room for more current surveillance footage.

However, if a party is aware that an incident occurred on their property that can give rise to a lawsuit, they may have a duty to preserve relevant evidence.  Oftentimes, when parties preserve surveillance footage, they only preserve the footage of the incident giving rise to a claim or footage immediately prior to and after such incident.  Nevertheless, courts may find that footage minutes, and even hours, before and after an incident is relevant to a claim.  This is because notice is oftentimes important in slip and fall and other negligence lawsuits and footage before an incident and sometimes after an incident may be relevant to proving notice.  As a result, it is important to preserve as much footage of the day of the incident as possible, and if a party had not preserved this evidence, they may be held accountable for spoliation.

Defective Equipment

Another common issue that can give rise to spoliation of evidence claims is defective equipment.  When equipment has failed, it is reasonable that people will want to quickly replace the defective items.  Once the defective items are replaced, it might not seem worthwhile to preserve defective items, even if this equipment might give rise to a claim.  However, it may be important to preserve defective equipment and other similar items that may form the basis for a spoliation of evidence claim.  This is because a party’s expert may want to inspect the item when making determinations related a lawsuit, and a trier of fact may want to inspect the items themselves.  As a result, even if defective equipment has already been replaced, and is simply taking up space, it may still make sense to preserve such items in order to avoid being accused of spoliation.

Emails

Emails are oftentimes the subject of spoliation of evidence claims.  Emails are frequently relevant to lawsuits, because they can pertain to matters that are at the heart of litigation.  However, many individuals and companies delete old emails.  In addition, some email settings may delete old emails after a certain amount of time on a regular basis.

Nevertheless, similar to the issues involving surveillance footage discussed above, individuals may have a duty to preserve emails.  If someone is put on notice that emails may be relevant to litigation, they should ensure that emails are preserved and will not be subject to automatic deletion.  It is important to note that the metadata connected to emails may also be important, and this is data that relates to the date an email was generated, its author, and other characteristics of the record.  As a result, it is especially important to preserve emails in a digital state so that they can be produced with all of their metadata if this is requested in litigation.

The Rothman Law Firm is experienced with the law of spoliation of evidence, and we have successfully argued that parties should be sanctioned for destroying evidence.  We are also experienced in helping people and companies satisfy their duties to preserve evidence.  If you are dealing with a spoliation issue or are looking for an experienced New York and New Jersey lawyer to handle your legal matter, please feel free to contact The Rothman Law Firm to request a free consultation.