Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180321_0000935.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:10:19+00:00

Document:
GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.
PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This is a property loss case in which Plaintiff argues that Defendant Grange Insurance Company of Michigan (“Grange”) destroyed photographs of the damage to Plaintiff's home caused by frozen and burst pipes that allegedly were taken by Grange's insurance adjuster, Jason May. In compliance with an Order of this Court issued in response to Plaintiff's first motion for spoliation sanctions, Grange produced an information technology employee from Grange for deposition regarding the allegedly missing photographs. Still unsatisfied with Grange's explanation regarding the allegedly missing photographs, Plaintiff renewed her motion for spoliation sanctions. (ECF No. 60, Amended Renewed Motion for Spoliation Sanctions.) The Court held a hearing on the spoliation motion on September 13, 2017, and ordered that Grange comply with further limited requests for additional information regarding Grange's claims handling and equipment retention policies. Grange has complied with the Court's instructions issued at the September 13, 2017 hearing, but Plaintiff remains unsatisfied with Grange's response and has filed a Second Renewed Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 65.) Grange responded to the renewed motion (ECF No. 66) and Plaintiff has filed a reply (ECF No. 67). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion for spoliation sanctions.
This is an insurance loss case involving Plaintiff's claim under her Grange policy for an alleged loss suffered by claimed water damage to her home in or about late January or early February, 2014. Although discovery has closed, the parties continue to debate whether Plaintiff is entitled to spoliation sanctions based upon Grange's conduct in allegedly destroying or failing to preserve photographs allegedly taken by its insurance adjuster, Jason May. Plaintiff claims that these allegedly spoliated photographs would have established the existence of numerous “burst pipes” and would have substantiated her claim of extensive damage in her home.
Plaintiff's theory of spoliation appears to be that Mr. Tison's testimony establishes that Mr. May did indeed photograph a pile of burst pipes and that those photographs were uploaded to the Grange claims handling system by Mr. May and later deleted by Grange in an effort to sabotage Plaintiff's claim. The Court has supported Plaintiff's attempt to develop this theory, giving Plaintiff an opportunity (despite the fact that discovery had closed) to depose an information technology representative from Grange and subsequently requiring Grange to provide additional information requested by Plaintiff that appeared not to have been conclusively established to Plaintiff's satisfaction by the information technology representative's deposition testimony. The matter is now ready for resolution by the Court.
Spoliation of evidence is an evidentiary issue and is governed by federal law in this Circuit. Adkins v. Wolever, 554 F.3d 650, 652 (6th Cir. 2009) (en banc). “[T]he authority to impose sanctions for spoliated evidence arises not from substantive law but, rather, from a court's inherent power to control the judicial process.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To be entitled to an adverse inference instruction based on the destruction of evidence, Plaintiffs “must establish: (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind; and (3) that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.” Beaven v. United States DOJ, 622 F.3d 540, 553 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002)). “‘The test prescribed in Beaven is conjunctive; thus, so long as the district court did not err in determining that [the party seeking an adverse inference instruction] had not satisfied at least one of the prongs, its determination that a spoliation sanction was not warranted should not be upset.'” Ross v. American Red Cross, 567 F. App'x 296, 302 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Adkins v. Wolever, 692 F.3d 499, 504 (6th Cir. 2012)). Where material is destroyed in the normal course of business and without evidence of a culpable motive, spoliation sanctions generally are not appropriate. Parrish v. Dollar Gen'l Corp., 680 F. App'x 423, 427 (6th Cir. 2017).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.