Crossley v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare, 3:20-cv-00319

Plaintiff Marilyn Crossley, a speech pathologist, was terminated by Kettering Adventist Healthcare in August 2019 after an August 15, 2019 investigatory meeting about alleged HIPAA violations.
Interim HR manager Megan Douglas took handwritten notes of the August 15 meeting, then emailed an electronic summary the same day.
Douglas routinely shredded her prior-year notebooks for confidentiality and destroyed the 2019 handwritten notes at year-end; it is unclear whether supervisor Belinda Isaac actually took or later destroyed notes.
Crossley filed an EEOC charge in January 2020 and this suit in July 2020; she moved for sanctions seeking an adverse-inference jury instruction based on spoliation of Douglas’s notes.
The magistrate judge denied the motion without prejudice, concluding plaintiff failed to prove (1) an obligation to preserve, (2) a culpable state of mind, and (3) that the destroyed notes would likely have supported Crossley’s pretext claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to preserve evidence (common law)	Douglas/Kettering should have known notes might be relevant to future litigation	No probable litigation in 2019; routine destruction permissible	No common-law preservation duty existed when notes were destroyed
Duty under 29 C.F.R. §1602.14	Handwritten interview notes are personnel records and must be kept	Electronic summary of the notes satisfies the regulation	Preserving the electronic summary complied with §1602.14; handwritten notes need not be kept
Culpable state of mind required for adverse inference	Negligence suffices to support adverse-inference instruction	Severe sanction requires intent to deprive; negligence insufficient	Court required intent (not mere negligence) to support an adverse-inference instruction
Relevance of destroyed notes to pretext claim	Notes would show facts undermining legitimacy of termination (supporting pretext)	Notes were summarized; doubtful they would add material proof of pretext	Plaintiff failed to show a reasonable trier of fact could find the notes would support pretext

Beaven v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010) (articulating elements for spoliation sanctions)
Adkins v. Wolever, 554 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2009) (courts may impose sanctions under inherent authority; consider fault degree)
John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008) (common-law duty to preserve arises only with notice of probable litigation)
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) (discussed in relation to culpability standard for spoliation)
Rummery v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 250 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding employer need not keep drafts or preparatory notes when final employment record is retained)
Stocker v. U.S., 705 F.3d 225 (6th Cir. 2013) (highlights that more than negligence may be required before giving adverse inference)