"Spoliation" is the "intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration,
or concealment of evidence." BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1437 (8th Ed.
2004). Federal law, not state law, controls the imposition of
sanctions for failure to preserve evidence in a diversity case. See
Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 427 F.3d 939 (11th Cir. 2005)
(federal law governs the imposition of spoliation sanctions), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2967, 165 L. Ed. 2d 950 (2006); [*22] see also
King v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. 337 F.3d 550, 556 (5th Cir. 2003)
(same); Assimack v. J.C. Penney Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20463,
2005 WL 2219422, *2 (M.D. Fla.. 2005) (same) The Court has broad
discretion to impose sanctions derived from its inherent power to
manage its own affairs and to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases. Id. at 944 (citing Chambers, 501 U.S. 32 at 43,
111 S. Ct. 2123, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1991)). Sanctions for discovery
abuses are intended to prevent unfair prejudice to litigants and to
insure the integrity of the discovery process. Id. The courts have the
inherent power to enter a default judgment as punishment for a
defendant's destruction of documents:
Sanctions may be imposed against a litigant who is on notice that
documents and information in its possession are relevant to
litigation, or potential litigation, or are reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and destroys such
documents and information. While a litigant is under no duty to keep
or retain every document in its possession once a complaint is filed,
it is under a duty to preserve what it knows, or reasonably should
know, is relevant in the [*23] action, is reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to
be requested during discovery, and/or is the subject of a pending
discovery request.
Received on Mon Sep 24 2007 - 12:06:26 CDT
