Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02890/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02890-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Default

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MARGIE DANIEL, individually 

and on behalf of a class of 

similarly situated 

individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

CIV. NO. 2:11-02890 WBS EFB

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Margie Daniel brought this action against 

defendant Ford Motor Company alleging a defect in rear suspension 

geometry in new 2005 through 2011 Ford Focus vehicles. Presently 

before the court is defendant’s motion for sanctions. (Def.’s 

Mot. for Sanctions (“Def.’s Mot.”) (Docket No. 115).) 

Defendant alleges that plaintiff destroyed evidence by 

removing and discarding two out of the four sets of tires that 

Case 2:11-cv-02890-WBS-EFB Document 124 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

have been on her Focus during the pendency of this litigation. 

(Id. at 1.) Plaintiff removed the first set of tires on November 

4, 2011, two days after she filed this lawsuit. (Pl.’s Mot. for 

Class Certification (“Pl.’s Mot.”) Ex. NN, Op. Report of Thomas 

Lepper at 10 (Docket No. 33-6).) She did not retain that set and 

defendant did not inspect it. (Def.’s Mot., Br. at 2 (Docket No. 

115-1).) She removed her second set in February 2013 after

experts for both parties had inspected that set. (Id.)

Defendant stated at oral argument that the second set is 

preserved. Plaintiff removed her third set on December 27, 2014.

(Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Renewed Mot. for Class Certification, 

Decl. of Janet Conigliaro Ex. 7, Vehicle Service Records (Docket 

No. 114-10).) She did not retain that set and defendant did not 

inspect it. (Def.’s Br. at 4.) Plaintiff’s fourth set is 

currently on her vehicle. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 6 (Docket No. 118.)

Plaintiff concedes that she spoliated the first and 

third sets of tires and claims “that her failure to retain the 

tires was . . . innocent [and] accidental.” (Id. at 4.) 

Defendant stated at oral argument that it currently has access to 

plaintiff’s second and fourth sets of tires.

Defendant’s proposed remedy is that it be taken as 

established that the tires “did not exhibit premature inboard 

edge rear tire wear at any time prior to [plaintiff’s] vehicle’s 

current mileage.” (Def.’s Br. at 9.) In the alternative,

defendant asks that the court “preclude Plaintiff from 

introducing at trial any expert testimony or evidence that 

pertains to or is based on tire wear allegedly observed on the 

first three sets of tires that were on Ms. Daniel’s vehicle.” 

Case 2:11-cv-02890-WBS-EFB Document 124 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

(Id. at 8-9.)

The court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions is

discretionary. Air Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s 

of London, 45 F.3d 288, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). At this stage in 

the litigation, it is premature to decide what form of sanction 

is appropriate with respect to plaintiff’s spoliation of the 

third set of tires. Although it does appear at this point that 

some sort of remedy will likely be appropriate, the court will be 

in better position to make that decision closer to or during the

time of trial, when it can better weigh the probative value and 

prejudicial effect of the destroyed evidence. Accordingly, the 

court will deny defendant’s motion for sanctions without 

prejudice to its timely renewal at a later date.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for 

sanctions be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice to 

its timely renewal at a later date.

Dated: September 23, 2016

Case 2:11-cv-02890-WBS-EFB Document 124 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 3