When Must You Hold Onto Evidence? Understanding Your Responsibilities

1. Remark destroyed her old computer after receiving the first deposition notice, but before receiving the last one which required the production of documents.
2. Shamrock filed a two-count complaint against Remark, alleging she intentionally destroyed or negligently destroyed documents in bad faith.
3. Remark testified that she obtained a new computer and destroyed her old one, and did not preserve any records from her old computer. 1. The trial court found that Remark had no statutory or contractual duty to preserve evidence.
2. It was found that by the time Shamrock served Remark with a subpoena for documents, she had already destroyed her old computer, and therefore had no legal duty to preserve it.
3. The appellate court recognized that there is no general duty in common law to preserve evidence in a third-party spoliation situation in Florida. 1. The Shamrock case in Florida established that non-parties do not have a common law duty to preserve evidence, even if they know of pending litigation.
2. The court ruled that the duty to preserve evidence only arises through pending litigation and an individual’s anticipation that something in their control could be potentially useful in the litigation.
3. It is advisable for non-parties to consult with legal counsel before discarding any documents that might be relevant in a current or potential lawsuit in Florida.

https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2019/07/spoliation-of-evidence-florida-obligation-to-preserve-evidence/