Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
665 F.3d 68
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Bull, a part-time UPS employee since 1986, sustained neck/shoulder injuries in December 2005 and was given lifting restrictions.
- Bull’s initial medical notes limited overhead lifting; later notes suggested higher lifting capacity, creating a dispute over her actual work ability.
- Two Farber notes (June 13, 2006 and August 14, 2006) contained inconsistencies; UPS sought originals due to legibility and authenticity concerns.
- UPS formally requested originals; Bull’s union representative assisted, but Bull did not supply the originals during discovery.
- A mistrial was declared in March 2010 after Bull revealed the originals might exist; the district court sanctionably dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Bull later provided the original Farber notes five days after the mistrial, prompting UPS’s motion for sanctions and this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonproduction of originals constitutes spoliation | Bull provided copies; nonproduction is not spoliation under the Brewer framework. | Originals were requested and withholding constitutes spoliation justifying sanctions. | Abused discretion; nonproduction alone did not prove spoliation. |
| Whether Bull intentionally withheld originals | Record shows inadvertence, not intentional withholding. | District Court inferred bad faith from conduct. | Presumption of inadvertence applies; no clear finding of bad faith. |
| Whether Poulis factors supported dismissal with prejudice | Dismissing was excessive given lack of proof of willful misconduct and availability of alternatives. | Prejudice and discovery violations justify drastic sanction. | Court abused discretion; several Poulis factors weighed against dismissal. |
| What is the appropriate remedy following reversal on spoliation | Retrial should proceed without prejudicial sanction. | Remedies should have included stronger sanctions or dismissal. | Remand for retrial; reversal of dismissal with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 72 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 1995) (spoliation requires actual withholding with intent for bad faith; not mere destruction)
- Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1994) (spoliation and sanctions framework in Third Circuit)
- In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Delaware, Inc., 489 F.3d 568 (3d Cir. 2007) (sanctions for spoliation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (spoliation involves destruction or failure to preserve relevant evidence)
- Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2002) (Poulis factors for involuntary dismissal with prejudice)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (six-factor test for dismissal with prejudice)
- Scarborough v. Eubanks, 747 F.2d 871 (3d Cir. 1984) (prejudice considerations in sanctions and dismissals)
- Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011) (Merits consideration within Poulis framework)