... One Federal U.S. Magistrate Judge Calmly Denies Both Motions.
In Vanliner Insurance Co. v. ABF Freight System, Inc., 2012 WL 750743 (M.D. Fla. March 8, 2012)(Thomas B. Smith, USMJ), Download Vanliner Ins. Co. v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 5.11cv122, Order of USMJ Filed March 8, 2012) PUBLIC ACCESS, a Federal Magistrate Judge was faced with two motions for sanctions. A truck was at the center of this dispute, at least to begin with.
The originating motion was filed by an Insurance Company and its apparent Policyholder, "for spoliation sanctions" against ABF. That motion was based on ABF's alleged destruction of its truck's Electronic Control Module of "ECM" data. Id. at *1. Supposedly, the lost data would or may have revealed some information about the crash in which the truck was involved.
ABF and its lawyers were not amused, as they say. ABF filed a motion for sanctions against the parties which filed the spoliation sanctions motion, alleging that the spoliation sanctions motion was "'frivolous and baseless'". Id.
Ruling that in the Eleventh Circuit, proof of spoliation requires proof of Bad Faith among other things, the Magistrate Judge denied the "spoliation sanctions" motion because in this case, the Court held that one of the "other things" was not proven. The Court held that the spoliation movants "failed to demonstrate that the allegedly spoliated evidence was crucial to its case or defense, which is an essential element of the spoliation claim." Id. at *2.
The Magistrate Judge then calmly denied the second motion for sanctions, which, on its face, was filed because of the first motion for sanctions. "Lastly, as the Court has given due consideration to the" spoliation sanctions motion, the Court denied the second sanctions motion without further words. Id. at *3.
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments