[brief] Plaintiff, through discovery, began a fishing expedition in an attempt to prove the lighting malfunctioned and therefore was inadequate at the time of Plaintiff’s fall.  This appeal is due to Plaintiff’s unfounded allegation that one of the various types of logs generated by the Theater Management System (“TMS”) was not preserved by [...].  However, the actual evidence established the TMS is the scheduling software that merely schedules the events to take place in the theater, i.e. the previews, commercials, movies and cues for the lights during the sequence of events.  The TMS generated various logs, most of which were obtained through discovery.  The logs at issue on this appeal, not only would not contain information helpful, relevant, important or necessary for Plaintiff’s case, they were merely duplicative of other logs actually exchanged in discovery.  More specifically, there is no evidence these logs would provide confirmation the scheduled events actually took place.  Regardless, the evidence showed the TMS logs at issue were automatically deleted by the computer system after 8 days.  Plaintiff had absolutely no evidence to present to the Trial Court that showed [...] was on notice this one set of TMS logs should have been preserved and therefore had no support for the Motions at issue.  The evidence will show this Court how the cause of Plaintiff’s fall was initially unknown and while [...] employees investigated all possibilities, Plaintiff’s letter of representation alleging the cause of the fall being inadequate lighting, was not received before the logs at issue were automatically deleted by the computer system.  All evidence as to the functioning and adequacy of the lights was obtained from other sources and therefore not spoliated.  Plaintiff could not and still cannot show the necessary support for the Motion to Amend the Pleadings.  Plaintiff’s team of attorneys throughout the litigation and trial of this case, made conscious decisions on what evidence to pursue, and most relevant to this appeal, Plaintiff’s attorneys made the decision **not** to renew the motion to amend to add fraudulent concealment or to pursue the evidence at trial and request a spoliation charge to be read to the jury despite presenting the same witnesses cited to in the motions and this appeal.  It is abundantly clear these decisions were made because those claims were meritless from the start; the same reason the Trial Court denied the earlier motions.  Futility defeats a motion to amend.  Plaintiff presented [...] with evidence believed to be persuasive of the position but ultimately that backfired.  Plaintiff was stuck and is still stuck because that same evidence presented led to the motions being denied.  Appellant is here for the fifth time with the exact same tired arguments and overstated and misunderstood evidence as was presented at the Trial Court level.  There is still no proof of any form of abuse of discretion by [...].  There is still no evidence [...] committed some form of spoliation or fraudulent concealment.  There is still no evidence the TMS logs at issue would have provided any evidence as to whether the lights functioned properly in the theater, and certainly not as to whether the lighting in the location of Plaintiff’s fall was “adequate” or not.  All evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s fall was preserved and the logs at issue, despite being completely irrelevant, were merely duplicative of other evidence produced in the case.  Plaintiff’s appeal should be denied as the prior motions were because Plaintiff’s claims at issue are simply meritless.