Under the civil rules of procedure, a sanction for the destruction of evidence would include an adverse finding. In other words, if you are a party to a lawsuit and destroy evidence, the court may find that you were guilty of the allegations.
One of the reasons for this is that now, the court has no way of telling what the evidence said. Would the evidence point to the party knowing about the problem? Would the evidence show the party did nothing while it knew? Would the evidence show nothing?
That is why it is so important to write a Spoliation Letter. An Spoliation Letter is a letter that explains your duty to preserve evidence. The letter explains that because there is a lawsuit (or there will be one), you now have to stop destroying evidence.
As an attorney, regardless of what side you are in, you have a duty to advise your client. A big part of discovery is finding relevant evidence. It would be against the idea of justice to go about destroying evidence.
This case highlights the importance of not destroying evidence. In this case, in 2009, a 9-year old boy was at a mountain trail in Lassen Volcanic National Park when the retaining wall gave way. Unfortunately, the boy died from this accident.
Court records show a complaint that the chief of maintenance shredded all of his documents, some of which dealt with visitor safety issues. The documents were shredded sometime around December 2009 and January 2010.
As a sanction for destruction of evidence by the National Park Service in a wrongful death case, a federal judge in Sacramento, Calif., ruled Tuesday that the United States was negligent.
U.S. District Judge Nunley, held that the government was negligent “for all purposes in this case.” The judge found that the government “purposely destroyed” the remains of the retaining wall, and that the park director and some staff knew the wall was unsafe, the newspaper says.
“What is less clear, although highly suspicious, is whether defendant [destroyed] evidence other than the wall,” U.S. Magistrate Gregory G. Hollows wrote in a previous decision.
Still undecided in the case and expected to be addressed at a June hearing is whether the government can assert a “discretionary function” defense under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The government argues that those in charge of the park had discretion to decide whether or not to repair the wall, and hence the government cannot be held liable for their decision-making.