(1) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE by defendants/cross-complainants Servpro Industries, Inc. and Immediate Flood Rescue Inc. dba Servpro of Santee/Lakeside is DENIED.
Objections overruled.
A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must make an initial prima facie showing that the responding party in fact destroyed evidence that had a substantial probability of damaging the moving party's ability to establish an essential element of his claim or defense. Then the burden shifts to the opposing party. (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227) Under the facts presented here, the court does not find that Famers Insurance Exchange intentionally sold the Morena's SUV on April 15, 2016. Farmers' subrogation claim was filed approximately eight months after the vehicle was sold at auction. At the time of the sale of the SUV, Farmers was not a party to this lawsuit. There is evidence of communications between Farmers and defendants' i
Hearing Date
July 06, 2017
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
(1) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE by defendants/cross-complainants Servpro Industries, Inc. and Immediate Flood Rescue Inc. dba Servpro of Santee/Lakeside is DENIED.
Objections overruled.
A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must make an initial prima facie showing that the responding party in fact destroyed evidence that had a substantial probability of damaging the moving party's ability to establish an essential element of his claim or defense. Then the burden shifts to the opposing party. (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227) Under the facts presented here, the court does not find that Famers Insurance Exchange intentionally sold the Morena's SUV on April 15, 2016. Farmers' subrogation claim was filed approximately eight months after the vehicle was sold at auction. At the time of the sale of the SUV, Farmers was not a party to this lawsuit. There is evidence of communications between Farmers and defendants' i