1. Remark destroyed her old computer after receiving a deposition notice, but before receiving the last one which required the production of documents.
2. Shamrock filed a complaint against Remark, alleging she intentionally or negligently destroyed documents in bad faith.
3. Remark did not review the old computer to see if it contained any documents relevant to the litigation. 1. The trial court found that Remark had no statutory or contractual duty to preserve evidence.
2. The trial court found that Remark had already destroyed her old computer by the time Shamrock served her with a subpoena for documents, so she had no legal duty to preserve the old computer or its contents.
3. The appellate court in Shamrock recognized that there is no general duty in common law to preserve evidence in a third-party spoliation situation. 1. In the Shamrock case, the court ruled that non-parties in Florida do not have a common law duty to preserve evidence, even if they are aware of pending litigation.
2. The court stated that non-parties do not owe a duty to safeguard evidence in anticipation of litigation, unless there is a statute, contract, or discovery request that imposes such a duty.
3. While non-parties are not obligated to preserve evidence, they are advised to consult with legal counsel before discarding any documents that could be relevant in a current or potential lawsuit.
https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2019/07/spoliation-of-evidence-florida-obligation-to-preserve-evidence/
Leave a Reply