Pandya v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:19-cv-2743-TCB |
| Citation | 552 F.Supp.3d 1364 |
| Parties | Ansuya Dhruvkumar PANDYA, individually, and Jagriti A. Vyas, as administrator of the estate of Dhruvkumar K. Pandya, Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Lanier John Edwards, Joseph, Aleem & Slowik, LLC, Tarek Abdel-Aleem, Yussuf Abdel-Aleem, The Aleem Law Firm, Stella Adhisurya, Atlanta, GA, Edward Molinary, The Molinary Law Firm, Lebanon, GA, for Plaintiff Ansuya Dhruvkumar Pandya.
Lanier John Edwards, Joseph, Aleem & Slowik, LLC, Tarek Abdel-Aleem, The Aleem Law Firm, Stella Adhisurya, Atlanta, GA, Edward Molinary, The Molinary Law Firm, Lebanon, GA, for Plaintiff Jaqriti A. Vyas.
Cameron A. Mobley, Jeffery Randolph Saxby, Hall Booth Smith, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' renewed motion [112] for spoliation of evidence sanctions and motion [122] to strike Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.'s rebuttal expert.
Also before the Court are Marriott's motion [109] for summary judgment, motion [103] in limine to preclude reference to the decedent's alleged wrongful death, motion [104] in limine to preclude reference to overwritten video footage, and motions [105, 106] to strike Plaintiffs' witnesses Vin Patel and Harish Pattni.
This premises liability action arises out of a fall that occurred in the lobby of the Atlanta Marriott Alpharetta Hotel.
On the evening of December 9, 2018, Dhruvkumar K. Pandya attended a wedding reception at the Marriott hotel with his wife, Plaintiff Ansuya Pandya; daughter, Dr. Arati Pandya; and son, Dr. Rajiv Pandya.
Because it was raining "pretty heavily" that evening, Rajiv Pandya dropped off Mr. Pandya and Arati Pandya under the covered front entrance of the hotel. [109-2] at 13:11. According to Arati, the ground was slippery from the rain when the family got out of the car.
Upon exiting the car, Arati had her father sit down on the seat of his rollator walker, as was their habit when the distance was great or the weather was poor. Below are photos of the rollator walker:
The approach to the lobby entrance is covered by a fifty-to sixty-foot-long porte cochere. Mr. Pandya was sitting on the walker facing his daughter as she rolled him backwards under the porte cochere towards the hotel door.
At the threshold of the hotel lobby, as Mr. Pandya passed through the swinging doors of the accessible entrance, the walker slipped and tipped over. Mr. Pandya fell backwards out of it and hit the back of his head and his upper back on the lobby floor.
Arati Pandya testifies that no Marriott employee was around when the fall occurred. Carlos Cruz, the front desk guest expert on the evening of December 9, did not observe Mr. Pandya's fall but came from behind the lobby desk to investigate the crowd that had gathered. He saw members of the crowd tending to Mr. Pandya, and someone informed him that Mr. Pandya had fallen. Cruz asked whether Mr. Pandya needed medical attention but was told by a woman he believed to be one of Mr. Pandya's family members that she was a doctor and not to worry.
After her father's fall, Arati Pandya noticed usual amounts of water on the hotel lobby floor just past the threshold. Rajiv Pandya testifies that the floors of the doorway and lobby were slippery.
Cruz, on the other hand, testifies that he did not see any water accumulated on the floor in the area near the front door. He further testifies that hotel staff routinely clean up water any time they notice it, pay attention to the presence of water on floors when it is raining, and use towels to dry up any spills or water.
When he returned from parking the car, Rajiv Pandya examined his father's medical condition and decided not to take him to the emergency room. Instead, the family helped Mr. Pandya into a wheelchair, and they continued to the wedding reception.
At some point during the evening, Mr. Pandya called another daughter, Plaintiff Jagriti Vyas, and told her that he had fallen hard and was in terrible pain. He also informed her that the floor was wet and slippery. Subsequent MRI scans revealed an acute fracture of Mr. Pandya's T-4 vertebra.
On May 20, 2019, Plaintiffs Ansuya Pandya and Jagriti Vyas filed this action in the Superior Court of Fulton County alleging negligence, wrongful death, and loss of consortium. The complaint contends that Marriott was negligent in failing to keep the hotel entrance dry or otherwise keep the premises reasonably safe. Marriott timely removed the case to this Court.
On January 5, 2021, the Court granted Marriott's motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' wrongful death claim and its corresponding claim for damages. Marriott now moves for summary judgment as to all remaining claims.
Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). There is a "genuine" dispute as to a material fact if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." FindWhat Inv. Grp. v. FindWhat.com , 658 F.3d 1282, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). In making this determination, "a court may not weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations of its own." Id. Instead, the court must "view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Id.
"The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact." Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). If the nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, there are two ways for the moving party to satisfy this initial burden. United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop. , 941 F.2d 1428, 1437–38 (11th Cir. 1991). The first is to produce "affirmative evidence demonstrating that the nonmoving party will be unable to prove its case at trial." Id. at 1438 (citing Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 331, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ). The second is to show that "there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ).
If the moving party satisfies its burden by either method, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that a genuine issue remains for trial. Id. At this point, the nonmoving party must " ‘go beyond the pleadings,’ and by its own affidavits, or by ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc. , 64 F.3d 590, 593–94 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ).
The Court will first consider Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions and motion to strike Marriott's rebuttal expert before turning to Marriott's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs once again raise the issue of overwritten video footage from the date of the December 9, 2018 incident.
Marriott's incident report, dated December 11, 2018, mentions that cameras were reviewed to determine which employee assisted Mr. Pandya after his fall. Based on the report, Plaintiffs requested the video from Marriott, but Marriott responded that it does not have any video.
On September 25, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted the Court seeking spoliation of evidence sanctions against Marriott for knowingly and purposely deleting video surveillance footage of the fall. Plaintiffs requested a sanction of default or an adverse-inference jury instruction.
In response, Marriott explained that the security footage from the night in question was automatically overwritten after thirty days in the ordinary course of business. It was not downloaded or preserved because there was no pre-suit demand or request for preservation of evidence, and the lawsuit was not commenced until over five months after the incident. Marriott further argued that there is no evidence of what the video may have captured of the fall, how the video could have differed from the testimony of Plaintiffs' eyewitnesses, or intentional destruction of evidence.
Marriott also provided the company's written policy regarding digital video recorder storage, which confirms that the Alpharetta Marriott's system was set up with a thirty-day storage timeframe. Based on the foregoing, the Court denied the request for sanctions.
Once again, Plaintiffs ask the Court for a sanction of default or an adverse-inference jury instruction based on the overwritten video footage. They insist that Marriott was on notice of potential litigation and should have preserved the video because on December 14, 2018, a claims adjuster for the hotel interviewed Arati Pandya regarding the incident, and Marriott initially claimed that the interview transcript was entitled to work product protection because it was created in anticipation of litigation.1
"Spoliation is 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." In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig. , 770 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1305 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (quoting Graff v. Baja Marine Corp. , 310 F. App'x 298, 301 (11th Cir. 2009) ).
"[F]ederal law governs the imposition of spoliation sanctions." Tesoriero v. Carnival Corp. , 965 F.3d 1170, 1184 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. , 427 F.3d 939, 944 (11th Cir. 2005) ). However, courts in this district borrow a multi-factor test from Georgia spoliation law to determine whether spoliation sanctions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial