Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter LLC
2:15-cv-00195
N.D. Ind.Dec 20, 2017Background
- On April 3, 2013 a fire occurred at ArcelorMittal’s Blast Furnace No. 3 while Amex Nooter employees were performing contracted work; ArcelorMittal alleges ~$3.2M in damages.
- Amex Nooter pleaded an affirmative defense titled “ArcelorMittal’s Spoliation of Evidence,” alleging ArcelorMittal cleaned up/disposed of incident evidence before Amex Nooter could inspect, prejudicing its defense.
- Amex Nooter moved for summary judgment on that affirmative defense and requested oral argument; ArcelorMittal opposed and argued spoliation relief should be sought as sanctions/evidentiary relief rather than as an affirmative defense.
- The parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction; the court considered whether spoliation may be pled as an affirmative defense under Indiana law and federal practice.
- The court declined to reach the merits of the alleged spoliation, denying summary judgment because spoliation is not properly resolved via an affirmative-defense summary-judgment motion and should be pursued by motion for sanctions or evidentiary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spoliation can be pleaded and decided as an affirmative defense via summary judgment | ArcelorMittal: spoliation is an evidentiary/discovery matter and relief should be sought by sanctions, not by summary judgment on an affirmative defense | Amex Nooter: spoliation by ArcelorMittal destroyed Amex Nooter’s ability to defend and warrants dismissal of claims (summary judgment) | Court: Denied summary judgment; spoliation is not properly resolved as an affirmative-defense summary-judgment motion and should be pursued as sanctions/evidentiary relief |
| Whether the court should address the substantive merits of the spoliation claim in this motion | ArcelorMittal: merits need not be reached because procedural posture is improper | Amex Nooter: asks court to rule on merits and dismiss claims | Court: Declined to address merits, granted leave to file appropriate sanctions motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) (spoliation gives rise to court-imposed sanctions but not independent substantive defenses)
- Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1995) (spoliation is an evidentiary rule administered at court’s discretion; need not be pled as an affirmative defense)
- Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 824 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2005) (Indiana does not recognize an independent first-party tort for spoliation; existing sanctions and adverse-inference rules suffice)
- Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 954 P.2d 511 (Cal. 1998) (courts may decline to create a standalone tort for spoliation where remedies and sanctions already exist)