Evidence - Withholding Original Documents and Producing Copies for Trial Constitutes Spoliation Warranting Adverse Inference

By Haviland, Jane T. | Suffolk University Law Review, Spring 2013 | Go to article overview

Evidence - Withholding Original Documents and Producing Copies for Trial Constitutes Spoliation Warranting Adverse Inference


Haviland, Jane T., Suffolk University Law Review


Evidence--Withholding Original Documents and Producing Copies for Trial Constitutes Spoliation Warranting Adverse Inference--Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d 68 (3d Cir. 2012)

When a party to litigation destroys relevant evidence, the judge may issue sanctions under the court's inherent and statutory authority to punish spoliation of evidence. (1) The adverse inference sanction permits or compels the jury to conclude the destroyed evidence would have harmed the party responsible for its loss. (2) In Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,3 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confronted the issue of whether the production of copies in lieu of original documents constitutes spoliation of evidence, and whether such action warrants the harsh sanction of dismissal, or a lesser sanction such as an adverse inference. (4) The Third Circuit held that Bull spoliated evidence by producing copies in place of originals because the authenticity of such documents cannot be evaluated; dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, however, was determined too harsh a sanction. (5)

In December 2005, Laureen Bull was injured on the job. (6) United Parcel Service, Inc.'s (UPS) doctor diagnosed Bull with contusions and strains to her shoulder and neck, and the specialist to whom she was referred restricted her lifting to twenty pounds. (7) UPS assigned Bull to a less strenuous assignment; at its conclusion, she ceased work and began collecting workers' compensation. (8) On March 29, 2006, having achieved seventy-percent recovery, Bull's orthopedic specialist claimed she had "reached maximum medical improvement." (9) Her lifting limit further restricted to ten pounds, Bull returned to work with the specialist's note. (10) After five days on a new assignment, her supervisor informed her that her medical restrictions prevented UPS from assigning her work, and advised her to pursue permanent disability. (11)

Bull desired continued employment and sought help from her union representative, who encouraged a second opinion that ultimately led to an authorization to lift fifty pounds or more. (12) The collective bargaining agreement covering Bull's employment, however, required the ability to lift seventy pounds or more. (13) UPS rejected the note from Bull's specialist for inconsistencies, and, after Bull obtained a second note from the specialist and faxed it to UPS, rejected the second note for similar reasons. (14) UPS then contacted Bull's union representative, requesting the original notes from the specialist. (15) The representative contacted Bull, who did not respond and instead filed a workers' compensation lawsuit in April 2007.16 During discovery, Bull responded to UPS's request for the specialist's notes by providing photocopies. (17)

During direct examination at trial, Bull's counsel sought to introduce the photocopied first note, insisting the original was no longer available. (18) Yet, in response to the district court's direct question, Bull stated, "[t]he original note is in my home." (19) Bull's counsel, taken by surprise at Bull's admission, maintained that he had repeatedly requested the original and Bull had insisted it no longer existed. (20) After a brief sidebar, Bull's attorney, as well as the district court judge, questioned Bull in open court, revealing Bull's belief that the original note was in her home, although she had not previously searched for the note. (21) UPS sought to remedy Bull's discovery misconduct by excluding all copies and producing only those already in UPS's possession. (22) The district court decided instead to declare a mistrial, inviting UPS to file a motion for sanctions that ultimately resulted in dismissal with prejudice. (23) The Third Circuit held that production of copies in lieu of originals did constitute spoliation, but that the court abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice and issuing an overly harsh sanction in a case where both parties failed to conduct the discovery process with utmost integrity. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Evidence - Withholding Original Documents and Producing Copies for Trial Constitutes Spoliation Warranting Adverse Inference
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.