Court: Surveillance Footage Overwritten Before Preservation Letter Not Spoliation
The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected an attempt by the plaintiff to compare the facts of the case to those in Marshall v. Brown's IA, in which the court ruled that defendant ShopRite should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence after giving only partial surveillance evidence of a slip-and-fall.
June 11, 2020 at 03:19 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that missing video surveillance footage of a trip-and-fall that occurred at a laundromat—requested by the plaintiff after it had already been overwritten—did not constitute spoliation of evidence.
A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Anne Lazarus, Deborah Kunselman and Daniel McCaffrey upheld a Lehigh County court's ruling in Monarca v. Annie's Express Laundry that a jury charge on spoliation of evidence was not needed in plaintiff Tanya Monarca's lawsuit against Annie's Express Laundry.
Monarca tripped and fell on a bucket at the laundromat, according to Lazarus' nonprecedential June 10 opinion. A surveillance camera monitored the area and the recordings were preserved for a period of two weeks before being automatically overwritten. The plaintiff's counsel requested the owner preserve video footage through a letter sent 15 days after the incident.
Monarca argued the court should give a spoliation instruction to the jury, but was denied. She appealed, pointing to Marshall v. Brown's IA, a case in which the Superior Court ruled defendant ShopRite should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence after giving only partial surveillance evidence of a slip-and-fall.
Lazarus, however, said the circumstances in Monarca's case were different.
"Here, Monarca failed to establish that Annie's Express negligently or otherwise intentionally permitted the destruction of evidence; indeed, Annie's Express made efforts to preserve relevant footage of the accident on the date it occurred, '[r]ather than permitting the footage to get overwritten, and without any actual indication that a lawsuit was pending,'" Lazarus said.
"The defendant in Marshall, in contrast, consciously disregarded plaintiff's request for 'arguably relevant evidence' during discovery," she continued, "turning over approximately 10% of the video surveillance footage plaintiff sought after having been notified of impending litigation and specifically warned that failing to turn over the requested footage would result in an adverse inference."
Lazarus added that the trial court also found "Monarca was not prejudiced as additional footage would not have changed the outcome of the trial given that the jury repeatedly saw footage establishing the location of the bucket prior to Monarca's arrival and both parties testified that they knew how and where the bucket was situated at the time of the incident."
Annie's Express is represented by Andrew Kessler of Wood Smith Henning & Berman, who said "We're very pleased with the ruling. We tried to draw a distinction between the Marshall decision and this one. Our client preserved what he thought was reasonable."
Monarca is represented by Bethlehem-based solo lawyer Michael Snover, who also did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Plaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250