Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790 (2009)

Citation: Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790 (2009)
Parent Document: Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790 (2009)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2009-09-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6580039/scott-v-garfield/ ↗

Full Text

1,810 chars

*798“The destruction of relevant evidence . . . has a pernicious effect on the truth-finding function of our courts.” Fletcher v. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., 437 Mass. 544, 553 (2002). The doctrine of spoliation permits the imposition of sanctions and remedies where a litigant or its expert negligently or intentionally loses or destroys evidence that the litigant (or expert) knows or reasonably should know might be relevant to a possible action, even when the spoliation occurs before an action has been commenced.10 Kippenhan v. Chaulk Servs., Inc., 428 Mass. 124, 127 (1998). Cf. Wiedmann v. Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 698, 704-707 (2005) (no abuse of discretion in imposition of sanctions for spoliation where plaintiff prejudiced by failure of defendant former employer, despite notice and statutory duty, to maintain plaintiff’s employment records); Keene v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., 439 Mass. 223, 227, 233-237 (2003) (doctrine of spoliation applicable where defendant hospital negligently lost or destroyed medical records essential to plaintiffs malpractice claim; defendant should have been aware of a likely claim at least as early as time that it filed notice of potential claim with insurer). “[Ojnce a ‘litigant or its expert knows or reasonably should know that the evidence might be relevant to a possible action,’ we have imposed a duty to preserve such evidence in the interests of fairness.” Fletcher v. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., supra at 550, quoting Kippenhan v. Chaulk Servs., Inc., supra. “The threat of a lawsuit must be sufficiently apparent, however, that a reasonable person in the spoliator’s position would realize, at the time of spoliation, the possible importance of the evidence to the resolution of the potential dispute.” Kip-penhan v. Chaulk Servs., Inc., supra.

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text