Berrios v. Jevic Transportation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | C.A. PC-04-2390,C.A. No. PC-04-2390 |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
| Parties | NAYSHA BERRIOS, Individually and As Administratrix of the Estate of CASSANDRA BERRIOS v. JEVIC TRANSPORTATION, INC.; CRAIG G. BENFIELD; FIRST STUDENT, INC.; ILBA BERRIOS, Alias; SAIA, INC.; SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC, Alias; and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA |
DECISION
In this wrongful death action, Defendant First Student, Inc. ("First Student"), Defendant Ilba Berrios ("Ilba"), and Plaintiff Naysha Berrios Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Cassandra Berrios ("Naysha") (collectively "Movants"), [1] have filed Motions for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence against Defendant Jevic Transportation, Inc. ("Jevic"), arguing that Jevic has destroyed several different kinds of relevant evidence in bad faith and should be severely sanctioned. Jevic denies these claims and has filed a Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence against First Student, contending that First Student destroyed relevant investigation reports and internal emails in bad faith and should face equally severe sanctions. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14.
This case's history has been detailed in numerous recent decisions of this Court. A concise summary of the pertinent facts shall suffice here.[2]
On the early morning of September 5, 2001, a school bus owned by First Student and driven by Ilba, a First Student employee was involved in an accident on the northbound side of Route I-95 with a tractor-trailer owned by Jevic and operated by Jevic employee Craig Benfield ("Benfield"). According to police reports and deposition testimony, the tractor-trailer was parked in the breakdown lane along I-95 when, at some point, the school bus crossed into the breakdown lane and struck the rear of the tractor-trailer. Benfield and his wife, Tina Benfield, a passenger in Benfield's tractor-trailer, escaped the accident without injury. Ilba and Naysha, a passenger in the school bus suffered severe injuries but survived. Cassandra Berrios ("Cassandra"), Naysha's infant daughter, suffered severe injuries resulting in her death.
Naysha filed the instant lawsuit. The parties dispute the factual circumstances surrounding the accident. Movants claim that the tractor-trailer was not parked fully within the breakdown lane and had begun moving before being struck by the school bus. Jevic alleges that the tractor-trailer was, in fact, parked completely within the breakdown lane and had not yet begun moving when the school bus struck it.
The parties proffer competing Motions for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence. Movants allege that Jevic has destroyed three specific types of evidence: (1) internal Jevic emails discussing the accident; (2) documents that Jevic was ordered to retain by a bankruptcy court; and (3) Electronic Control Module ("ECM") and Qualcomm OmniTRACS ("Qualcomm") data from Benfield's tractor-trailer. Movants contend that the totality of the record strongly suggests that Jevic destroyed this evidence in bad faith. Movants further assert that all of the allegedly despoiled evidence is relevant to this case because it bears on the disputed factual circumstances of the accident. Moreover, Movants aver that they are prejudiced in prosecuting their claims against Jevic without the benefit of this evidence and cannot obtain it from any other source.[3]
Jevic denies the allegations of spoliation. It maintains that the lost emails were deleted as part of its regular data retention policy and not due to any fraudulent intent. Jevic also argues that it hired a third-party administrator, Crawford & Company (the "TPA"), to investigate the accident, and thus the TPA was the party responsible for accident-related data retention. Jevic further contends that none of the allegedly despoiled bankruptcy documents are relevant to this case, and Movants cannot demonstrate that such documents ever existed in the first instance. Jevic also asserts that Movants overstate the scope and quality of the allegedly destroyed ECM and Qualcomm data. Finally, Jevic avers that such data is not relevant to this case because Jevic used the data for maintenance and logistical purposes only and then routinely discarded it.
Jevic seeks sanctions against First Student for First Student's alleged spoliation of two types of evidence. First, Jevic claims that First Student destroyed the reports and conclusions of the investigator First Student hired to analyze the accident. In support, Jevic maintains that First Student was obligated by an August 2, 2012 Order of this Court to produce "all correspondence" between itself and its investigator. Because First Student has failed to produce any reports or a privilege log noting the existence of such reports, Jevic contends that First Student must have destroyed these documents.
Second, Jevic alleges that First Student despoiled internal emails discussing the circumstances of the accident and the course of First Student's investigation. Jevic asserts that First Student allowed emails to accumulate on individual computers' hard drives instead of on a central server and willfully refused to maintain a backup system. Therefore, Jevic contends that First Student despoiled evidence when the hard drive of Percy Abbott ("Abbott"), First Student's Vice President of Safety, "crashed" in 2005 and all of his accumulated emails and other data were irretrievably lost.
Jevic maintains that the investigator's lost reports and emails are relevant to this case because they contain internal First Student discussions regarding the circumstances of the accident and the course of First Student's investigation. Jevic contends that it is prejudiced in conducting its defense without this evidence because it cannot obtain this important information from any other source.[4]
First Student replies that it has not despoiled evidence in the instant matter. Concerning the reports of its investigator, First Student asserts that the investigator produced only photographs of the accident and nothing more. First Student avers that all of the photographs have been provided to Jevic. First Student argues that there is no evidence demonstrating that any investigator's reports existed in the first instance. Thus, First Student contends that it did not destroy any investigatory reports.
First Student further argues that there is no evidence showing that it produced or subsequently destroyed any internal emails regarding the accident. In fact, First Student maintains that it immediately retained legal counsel to investigate the circumstances of the accident, and counsel handled all accident-related communications. First Student asserts that it has already produced a complete privilege log of relevant communications to Jevic.
Spoliation is defined as "the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation." 126 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1 at 7; see also Jimenez-Sanchez v Caribbean Restaurants, LLC, 483 F.Supp.2d 140, 143 (D.P.R. 2007) (). Our Supreme Court has stated that in Rhode Island, "[t]he doctrine of spoliation provides that 'the deliberate or negligent destruction of relevant evidence by a party to litigation may give rise to an inference that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to that party.'" Malinou v. Miriam Hospital, 24 A.3d 497, 511 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744 748 (R.I. 2000)); Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Assoc., Inc., 820 A.2d 929, 946 (R.I. 2003). The Court has elaborated that the "'[d]estruction of potentially relevant evidence obviously occurs along a continuum of fault-ranging from innocence through the degrees of negligence to intentionality.'" Rhode Island Hospital Trust Nat'l Bank v. Eastern General Contractors, Inc., 674 A.2d 1227, 1234 (R.I. 1996) (quoting Welsh v. United States, 844 F.2d 1239, 1246 (6th Cir. 1988)); Kurczy, 820 A.2d at 947. Although "[a] showing of bad faith on the part of the despoiler is not necessary to permit the spoliation inference, " the Court has found that such a showing "may strengthen the inference." Farrell v. Connetti Trailer Sales, Inc., 727 A.2d 183, 186 (R.I. 1999); see also Sacramona v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 106 F.3d 444, 447 (1st Cir. 1997) ). (Emphasis added.)
A court properly finds that spoliation of evidence has occurred when the moving party establishes a two-prong "evidentiary foundation." Booker v. Massachusetts Dep't of Public Health, 612 F.3d 34, 46 (1st Cir. 2010); see also 89 C.J.S. Trial § 671 at 1. First, the moving party must demonstrate that the opposing party knew of "the claim (that is, the litigation or the potential for litigation)." Booker, 612 F.3d at 46. Our Supreme Court has found that while a party is certainly on notice of a claim once the complaint is filed, the "'obligation to preserve evidence even arises prior to the filing of a complaint where a party is on notice that litigation is likely.'" Tancrelle, 756 A.2d at 749 (quoting Conderman v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp., 180 Misc.2d 8, 687 N.Y.S.2d 213, 217 (1998)). (Emphasis added.)
Second the moving party must show that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial