The trial judge denied the motion, finding C.C.P. 425.13 inapplicable to the spoliation cause of action. The Court of Appeal denied writ relief, agreeing with the trial judge that C.C.P. 425.13 did not apply. Therefore, the only potentially viable part of plaintiff's spoliation claim is the spoliation allegedly committed by the hospital, insofar as it may have affected her causes of action against the other defendants. Past decisions of the court have stressed the importance of encouraging parties to make their best effort to investigate and litigate their claims in a single proceeding. This goal would be undermined if a party who was disappointed in a verdict were permitted to bring a new lawsuit against a new party, claiming that the first suit would have been won but for the new party's destruction or suppression of evidence.
Spoliation is analogous to perjury, for which there is no tort remedy.
In both cases, a party may be deprived of critical evidence or a defense, or remain uncompensated for an injury. This potential injustice cannot be avoided, however, if we are to escape what we have identified as the greater harm of subjecting parties, witnesses, and the courts to unending litigation over the conduct and outcome of a lawsuit. Often the spoliation will come to light in the course of the lawsuit. The third-party spoliator may not be a true stranger to the litigation. As in the present case, the spoliator's actions as a first party may be subject to exposure, so that the plaintiff will end up with the compensation to which he or she is entitled.