[brief] [...] was simply not on notice of Plaintiff’s theory of liability based on all of the evidence presented, therefore providing [...] with no information on which to determine what evidence to preserve.  (Pa77, Pa113 to 114).  Even Plaintiff’s attorney letter, which came way later than the 8-day retention of the logs at issue, only stated that the theater was “unlit with the exception of inadequate lighting. ” (Pa113).  This statement in and of itself admits there was light, just that the lights, in Plaintiff’s opinion, were inadequate.  Even [...]’s employee prepared the Incident Report but did not reference the supposed “cause” of Plaintiff’s fall.  (Pa93).  [...] simply had no reason to preserve the logs at issue.  There was absolutely no evidence of any intentional conduct in what Plaintiff presented to the Trial Court twice and now to this Court.  Also, Plaintiff’s attempt to argue that this appeal should provide any relief due to the fact that Plaintiff had to incur the cost of having to retain an expert, cannot be ignored.  Plaintiff’s right to sue [...] came with costly obligations.  However, those obligations are no grounds for appealing a failed attempt to amend a complaint.  Plaintiff cannot possibly blame [...] for the fact that Plaintiff had to incur costs for retaining the experts required to pursue her claim against [...].  A simple claim for inadequate lighting that turned technical due to an overthinking and misunderstanding.  Plaintiff alone chose to prosecute this case.  Plaintiff alone put that cost upon herself for her own expert costs.  There is absolutely no legal or factual support for a claim by Plaintiff that this Court should award any relief for Plaintiff having to incur costs for coming up with an overly complicated theory of liability in an attempt to blame [...] for a fall down accident.  It should not be ignored that the evidence claiming to have been destroyed, hidden, and/or concealed was evidence that was not even relevant to the case.  Plaintiff cannot point to any evidence that the logs that self-deleted after 8 days would have provided any definitive information about the lights following the schedule/cues in the auditorium.  Please recall that Plaintiff, and her son/attorney/trial witness, acknowledged there were lights in the auditorium at the time, (Pa152:29-6 to 16, Pa152:31-4 to 14 and Pa152:31-18 to 25) and (Pa157:25-613), and the allegation was that those lights were inadequate.  (Da2 at ¶2).  There is nothing that even suggests that those logs would have provided information about the adequacy or inadequacy of lights in the auditorium.  The bottom line remains that Plaintiff failed to make a timely request to preserve one set of irrelevant logs produced by the TMS software and nothing can change that.  It was not intentional, and it was not fraudulent.  This Court, like the Trial Court, can see that no wrongdoing occurred in this case; Respondent has not committed any intentional act such as destruction or hinderance of evidence.  In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion was made late in discovery and would have prejudiced Defendant.  The denial of Plaintiff’s October 24, 2018 motion was proper as was the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.  Plaintiff fails to show that [...] abused her discretion based on the facts, case law, and application of both to the Judge’s actions.  Ultimately, for claims of fraudulent concealment and spoliation, Plaintiff could not and cannot make the threshold showing that [...] did anything intentional to destroy any evidence and therefore, cannot possibly be successful on those claims.  Consequently, Plaintiff’s requested amendment was futile, and [...] properly denied the motion.