Opinion ID: 2831413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spoliation Analysis

Text: The spoliation of evidence is a serious issue. A party’s failure to reasonably preserve discoverable evidence may significantly hamper the nonspoliating party’s ability to present its claims or defenses, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718, 721 (Tex. 2003), and can “undermine the truth-seeking function of the judicial system and the adjudicatory process,” Justice Rebecca Simmons and Michael J. Ritter, Texas’s Spoliation “Presumption”, 43 ST . MARY ’S L.J. 691, 701 (2012); see also Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex. 1998) (Baker, J., concurring) (observing that “[e]vidence spoliation is a serious problem that can have a devastating effect on the administration of justice”). As one federal district court has explained, “[d]ocuments 7 create a paper reality we call proof. The absence of such documentary proof may stymie the search for the truth.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg L.L.C., 220 F.R.D. 212, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In some circumstances, a missing piece of evidence like a photograph or video can be irreplaceable. Testimony as to what the lost or destroyed evidence might have shown will not always restore the nonspoliating party to an approximation of its position if the evidence were available; sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. In light of these concerns, courts have broad discretion to utilize a variety of remedies to address spoliation, including the spoliation instruction. See Andrew Hebl, Spoliation of Electronically Stored Information, Good Faith, and Rule 37(e), 29 N. ILL. U. L. REV . 79, 86 (2008). The instruction is an important remedy, but its use can affect the fundamental fairness of the trial in ways as troubling as the spoliating conduct itself. As we have recognized, “[b]ecause the instruction itself is given to compensate for the absence of evidence that a party had a duty to preserve, its very purpose is to ‘nudge’ or ‘tilt’ the jury” toward a finding adverse to the alleged spoliator. Wal-Mart Stores, 106 S.W.3d at 724. Thus, an unfortunate consequence of submitting a spoliation instruction is that it “often ends litigation” because “it is too difficult a hurdle for the spoliator to overcome.” Zubulake, 220 F.R.D. at 219. This “nudging” or “tilting” of the jury is magnified by the presentation of evidence that emphasizes the spoliator’s wrongful conduct rather than the merits of the suit. Added to these concerns are the complexities surrounding evidence preservation in today’s world, as technology has advanced to allow potential litigants to store larger volumes of electronic information. See Simmons and Ritter, Texas’s Spoliation “Presumption”, 43 ST . MARY ’S L.J. at 701. Thus, while electronic data can be a valuable source of evidence, it can also make compliance 8 with one’s responsibility to preserve and produce such data much more difficult and expensive. See id. at 702; Robert Hardaway, et al., E-Discovery’s Threat to Civil Litigation: Reevaluating Rule 26 for the Digital Age, 63 RUTGERS L. REV . 521, 522 (2011). Because of the prevalence of discoverable electronic data and the uncertainties associated with preserving that data, sanctions concerning the spoliation of electronic information have reached an all-time high. Dan H. Willoughby, Jr., et al., Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers, 60 DUKE L.J. 789, 790 (2010). Because of these and other myriad concerns, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 2006 to prohibit federal courts from imposing sanctions when discoverable electronic evidence is lost “as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” FED . R. CIV . P. 37(e).3 The Texas rules do not contain a comparable provision, but the challenges facing Texas courts are just as acute. Merits determinations are significantly affected by both spoliation instructions and the conduct that gives rise to them. We have observed that when a party is inherently prevented from having the merits of its case adjudicated, constitutional due process is implicated. TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917–18 (Tex. 1991) (discussing constitutional limitations on the power of courts to adjudicate a party’s claims without regard to the merits, but instead based on a party’s conduct in discovery). In light of these concerns, 3 Rule 37(e) is in the process of being amended again. Following the receipt of public comment, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules recommended a proposed amended rule for adoption by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. See Hon. David G. Campbell, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, Report of Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, 306–17 (May 2, 2014), http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/Agenda%20Books/ Standing/ST2014-05.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks. The Standing Committee approved the proposal at its May 29, 2014 meeting. Thomas Y. Allman, Standing Committee OKs Federal Discovery Amendments, L AW T ECH N O LO GY N EW S (June 2, 2014), http://www.lawtechnologynews.com/id=1202657565227?slreturn=20140505130019. 9 we granted review of Brookshire Brothers’ petition in order to bring much-needed clarity to our state’s spoliation jurisprudence.
In Texas, spoliation is an evidentiary concept rather than a separate cause of action. Trevino, 969 S.W.2d at 952. In declining to recognize spoliation as an independent tort in Trevino, we acknowledged that courts must have “adequate measures to ensure that it does not improperly impair a litigant’s rights.” Id. at 953. Thus, when evidence is lost, altered, or destroyed, trial courts have the discretion to impose an appropriate remedy so that the parties are restored to a rough approximation of what their positions would have been were the evidence available. Wal-Mart Stores, 106 S.W.3d at 721. As discussed further below, Texas courts necessarily enjoy wide latitude in remedying acts of discovery abuse, including evidence spoliation. Trevino, 969 S.W.2d at 953. Neither the Texas Rules of Evidence nor the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure specifically address spoliation. However, this Court recognized the concept as early as 1852, when we adopted the principle that all things are presumed against the wrongdoer; this is known as the spoliation presumption. See Cheatham v. Riddle, 8 Tex. 162, 167 (1852) (citation omitted) (stating that “[e]verything is to be presumed in odium spoliatoris”); see also Trevino, 969 S.W.2d at 952 (observing that “[e]vidence spoliation is not a new concept” and that “all things are presumed against a wrongdoer”). However, our guidance in this area has been limited to a small spattering of cases in the nineteenth century4 and several more in the last twenty years.5 4 See Curtis & Co. Mfg. v. Douglas, 15 S.W . 154, 155 (Tex. 1890) (noting that nonpreservation of evidence was “a circumstance to be considered by the jury”); Underwood v. Coolgrove, 59 Tex. 164, 170 (1883) (recognizing that the refusal to produce evidence in a party’s possession without explanation as to why it was not produced creates the 10 The courts of appeals have generally followed two basic frameworks in evaluating the