![]() ”Īlthough it was unclear what, if any, evidence was actually destroyed by the squirrel, the court did not fixate on actual loss in this opinion. Additionally, they claimed that the plaintiff might have deliberately left the car vulnerable because they “understood that the presence of rodent activity in the vehicle was a potential defense available to. Meanwhile, the defendants took a somewhat contradictory stance, questioning whether the squirrel had been there all along while simultaneously moving for spoliation sanctions, alleging that the outdoor storage allowed a rodent to enter the car between 20 and destroy evidence inside the engine. The plaintiff maintained that the initial report was valid and that the squirrel must have entered the car after the incident, while the vehicle was in storage. Predictably, the 2013 report caused all kinds of problems. Two years later, in November of 2013, the vehicle was inspected again, and the inspectors found rodent hair and bones, contradicting the initial report and raising the question of whether the debris was deliberately gathered by an animal (most likely a squirrel), rather than due to flawed design. On the strength of this report, which was approved by both parties, the plaintiff claimed that BMW should pay for the damage because the vehicle’s design allowed combustible materials to naturally accumulate under the car during normal operation.Īt this point, the car was taken by plaintiff’s third-party investigators and stored outside, “unwrapped and unprotected” for at least several months, maybe more. Her insurance provider, the plaintiff in this case, retained a third party to inspect the vehicle and investigate the fire, and the investigators determined that the fire was likely due to an accumulation of debris in the underbelly of the car. ![]() On March 16, 2010, Jean Patrick parked her newly leased BMW in the garage attached to her home, where it promptly caught fire, causing “substantial destruction” to the car and the property. Ohio July 15, 2014), started with an insurance claim. Many people would argue that it’s a crime to leave a brand new BMW 329xi outside, unattended for three months, regardless of circumstance-but in this case, BMW North America actually tried to obtain sanctions for it, claiming that open-air storage left the car in question vulnerable to rodent infestation and, ultimately, spoliation by squirrel. In the course of assembling relevant case law, we also ran across a number of oddball motions, reminding us that people do some strange stuff in the face of litigation-and that, to the court’s dismay, there are many innovative ways to destroy evidence. ![]() Most of those 700+ cases involve the serious, well-reasoned applications of civil procedure-most of them. In the process, we reviewed more than 700 civil cases involving spoliation of all kinds-the spoliation of electronically stored information, of physical evidence, and even (allegedly) of temperatures. “The End of Sanctions?” explores how those revisions have led to a 35 percent decline in the rate of spoliation sanctions and a general “de-risking” of eDiscovery, removing much of the fear that once characterized discovery and opening up new opportunities for innovative legal professionals. Logikcull recently released a new report collecting original research into the impacts of the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-and the dramatic decline in spoliation sanctions that have followed. But, like a ridiculous lawsuit, alleged spoliation can also be incredibly fun to read about-and produce some pretty outrageous (and strangely insightful) opinions. ![]() For destroying evidence intentionally (or in some cases, negligently), litigants and attorneys can face stiff sanctions, ranging from monetary fees to default judgment to jail time. In the world of eDiscovery, spoliation is serious business. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |