Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 21STCV30709, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30709    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION

            Plaintiffs Kirt Bjoin and Allison Bjoin seek an order that CACI 204 be given in the trial in this case because Defendant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. intentionally destroyed documents when it had a duty to preserve the documents.

            CACI 204 “may be given only if there is evidence of willful suppression, which one appellate court has described as ‘evidence that a party destroyed evidence with the intention of preventing its use in litigation.’  [Citation.]  (Bader v. Johnson & Johnson (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1094, 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 162, 194.)  “ ‘In order for an adverse inference to arise from the destruction of evidence, the party having control over the evidence must have had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed.’  [Citation.]  In addition, the party seeking the benefit of an inference from spoliation ‘must demonstrate first that the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind (i.e. where, for example, the records were destroyed knowingly, even if without intent to violate [a] regulation [requiring their retention], or negligently).  Second, a party must show that the destroyed records were relevant to the party's claim or defense.’  [Citation.]”  (Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 681-682.)

            Defendant lost boxes of documents when Defendant moved to a new headquarters in 1990.  (Motion at p. 8.)  Plaintiffs argue Defendant the documents were argued knowingly because Defendant was negligent in losing those boxes of documents.  (Motion at pp. 13-14.)  However losing documents during a move is not evidence of willful suppression with the intent to prevent its use of the documents in litigation.  Documents get lost.  The fact that they were lost is not evidence of any willfulness.  Also, Plaintiffs did not show that in 1990, Defendant has reason to believe a lawsuit of the nature of this case would be filed many years or decades later.  Plaintiffs’ reference to the holding in Reeves is not apposite because in that case the defendant had a statutory obligation to maintain the documents.  (Reeves, supra,  186 Cal.App.4th at p. 682.)  That is not the situation here.

            Plaintiffs also argue Defendant destroyed documents in 1997.  (Motion at pp. 9-10.)  However, Plaintiffs did not show the destroyed documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.  Rather, the witness stated he did not know what types of documents were thrown away.  (Motion at p. 9.) 

            The motion is DENIED.

            The moving party is to give notice.