Beverly R. Newman v. Meijer, Inc. (mem. dec.), 49A02-1604-PL-843

Background

On October 4, 2008, Beverly Newman slipped in watermelon juice and fell in a Meijer store and later sued Meijer for negligence, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
The suit proceeded for many years and was tried to a jury in March 2016; Newman participated pro se via video-conference.
Before trial, the court found Meijer failed to produce several documents it should have had (accident reports, policies, inspection records, videos, personnel records) and ordered a spoliation sanction: give the standard spoliation instruction and allow Newman to argue adverse inference in closing.
At trial, Meijer’s jury verdict was in its favor; Newman appealed, raising multiple claims about sanctions, opening statements, witness strategy, motions in limine, and alleged discrimination/due process violations.
The appellate record was incomplete: Newman did not provide full trial transcripts, transcripts of pretrial spoliation hearings, or the spoliation instruction text, limiting appellate review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment was required for Meijer’s discovery violations/spoliation	Newman: sanction was inadequate; trial court should have entered default judgment	Meijer: trial court has broad discretion to choose sanctions; default is extreme; insufficient record to show abuse of discretion	Court: Affirmed. No abuse shown and appellate record inadequate to review sanction decision
Whether opening statement misconduct required mistrial or default	Newman: inflammatory statements in Meijer’s opening warranted mistrial or default	Meijer: objections not made at trial; failure to object waives claim	Court: Waived; Newman did not timely object
Whether Meijer’s failure to call witnesses promised in opening statement was misconduct	Newman: misled jury by promising witnesses then not calling them	Meijer: parties commonly change witness strategy; Newman did not raise issue at trial and cites no authority	Court: Waived/no error; Newman did not preserve the issue
Whether grants of Meijer’s motions in limine were reviewable and erroneous	Newman: trial court abused discretion excluding settlement letters and government actions	Meijer: in limine rulings are preliminary; must be challenged during trial to preserve error	Court: Not reviewable on this record; Newman failed to seek admission at trial or provide trial transcript
Whether Newman was discriminated against or denied due process during the case	Newman: court discriminated based on disabilities and denied due process	Meijer: (implied) claims are unsupported; procedural rules require cogent argument and citation	Court: Waived for lack of cogent argument and citations under appellate rules

Key Cases Cited

Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 824 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2005) (spoliation can justify severe sanctions)
Reed v. Cassady, 27 N.E.3d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (trial courts have broad discretion in sanctions review)
Prime Mortgage USA, Inc. v. Nichols, 885 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (default judgment is an extreme sanction for extreme situations)
TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010) (rulings on motions in limine are not directly reviewable on appeal)
McCarthy v. State, 749 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2001) (same principle on motions in limine preservation)
Gasaway v. State, 547 N.E.2d 898 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (failure to timely object to opening statement remarks waives error)
Rohrkaste v. City of Terre Haute, 470 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (purpose of motions in limine and procedures to preserve error)
City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, 988 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2013) (appellate rules requiring cogent argument and citation to preserve claims)

Affirmed.