Morris v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:2021cv00245 - Document 29 (E.D. La. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' 15 Motion to exclude evidence due to purported spoliation is DENIED, as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/16/2021. (sa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Morris v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company Doc. 29 Case 2:21-cv-00245-MLCF-DMD Document 29 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LESLIE MORRIS CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 21-245 PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE SECTION “F” COMPANY, ET AL. ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to exclude evidence due to purported spoliation. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. Background The plaintiff in this personal injury case alleges that she was injured when the driver of a semi-truck rear-ended her on Interstate 10. She sued the defendants in Louisiana state court on September 4, 2020. 1 For a number of weeks thereafter, neither defendant was served. At issue in the present motion to exclude is the plaintiff’s decision to undergo an elective back surgery “after suit had been 1 On February 5, 2021, the defendants availed themselves of this Court’s removal jurisdiction. On March 31, 2021, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00245-MLCF-DMD Document 29 Filed 08/16/21 Page 2 of 4 filed but before any named defendants were served or appeared.” See Mot. at 3. troubling and plaintiff’s That timing, the defendants say, is “deeply suspect,” pre-surgery because in physical irreversibly condition it altering the “robb[ed the defendants] of the opportunity to timely request and obtain an [Additional Medical Opinion]” and thus “prejudiced [the defendants] by depriving them of the ability to obtain evidence, preserve evidence, vigorous defense.” and ensure a complete, See id. at 4, 7. comprehensive, and With towering rhetoric but scant legal support, the defendants accuse the plaintiff of slowrolling the service of her petition to conceal her plan to have a back surgery that altered her physical condition before the defendants’ doctor could furnish an Additional Medical Opinion. What remedy do the defendants propose for the plaintiff’s “destruction” of her “pre-surgical medical condition”? The “exclusion of all evidence related to the [plainly relevant] surgery, including but not limited to the surgical recommendation, the pre-surgery testing, 2 the surgery, the post-surgical followup appointments, and therapy relating to the surgery, and any and all medical expenses related to the same.” added) (footnote added). 2 See id. at 11 (emphasis The plaintiff opposes this request. It is unclear how “pre-surgery testing” would not be eminently relevant to defendants who appear to be concerned that evidence of the plaintiff’s pre-surgery condition has been erased from existence. 2 Case 2:21-cv-00245-MLCF-DMD Document 29 Filed 08/16/21 Page 3 of 4 I. Whatever the merits of their spoliation argument as a technical matter, the defendants’ motion is clearly overblown. Even if the plaintiff’s decision to undergo an elective procedure after initiating this litigation does constitute spoliation, 3 it hardly warrants the draconian exclusion the defendants propose. When obligation it to comes to ensure spoliation, that the trial courts punishment have fits a the vital crime. “Exclusion of spoiled evidence . . . is a ‘drastic sanction’ that courts generally try to avoid because exclusion would unnecessarily eviscerate the plaintiff’s case . . . .” often Menges v. Cliffs Drilling Co., 2000 WL 765082, at *1 (E.D. La. June 12, 2000). That is precisely what the defendants’ blanket exclusion would do here. of 3 evidence To address the plaintiff’s supposed “destruction” which still remains largely discoverable, the “Before a court may exclude spoiled evidence or provide for an adverse inference to arise from the intentional destruction of evidence, ‘the party having control over the evidence must have had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed.’” Menges, 2000 WL 765082, at *2 (quoting Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998)). “Such a duty ‘arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation.’” Id. (quoting Kronisch, 150 F.3d at 126). To the extent that undergoing a medical procedure amounts to “the intentional destruction of evidence” of a patient’s pre-procedure condition, the plaintiff arguably engaged in spoliation here. However, even when a party’s intentional destruction of relevant evidence is established, its reason for (or bad faith in) doing so must still be considered. See id. 3 Case 2:21-cv-00245-MLCF-DMD Document 29 Filed 08/16/21 Page 4 of 4 defendants propose to eliminate even more evidence. any showing of bad faith on the part of the All without plaintiff and “not . . . a single case that supports [the defendants’] position that the spoliation doctrine [even] applies on these facts.” Cf. id. at *3. * * * Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the defendants’ motion to exclude is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, August 16, 2021 _____________________________ MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
