Elliott-Thomas v. Smith (Slip Opinion)
110 N.E.3d 1231
Ohio2018Background
- Kristen Elliott-Thomas sued the Warren City School District and board members for wrongful termination; two defense attorneys (Smith and Hirt) represented the district in that case.
- While the underlying wrongful-termination case was pending, Elliott-Thomas filed a separate suit against Smith and Hirt alleging intentional spoliation of evidence (withholding, hiding, altering, destroying evidence).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Smith and Hirt, concluding Elliott-Thomas failed to show physical destruction of evidence and that the allegations were discovery disputes.
- The Eleventh District reversed, holding intentional concealment, interference, or misrepresentation of evidence is sufficient for a spoliation claim (no physical destruction required) and certified a conflict with other appellate districts.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted review to resolve whether the tort of intentional spoliation extends beyond physical destruction to include concealment or interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the tort of intentional spoliation of evidence encompass intentional concealment or interference with evidence (not just physical destruction)? | Elliott-Thomas: Smith requires willful conduct designed to disrupt a case and should cover concealment/interference, not only physical destruction. | Smith & Hirt: The tort requires willful destruction of evidence; concealment/interference are discovery or ethical violations remediable under rules, not an independent tort. | Held: No. The tort does not include concealment or interference absent physical destruction. Summary judgment for defendants reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1993) (established Ohio's five elements for independent tort of intentional spoliation of evidence)
- Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488 (Ohio 2001) (addressed res judicata question in a spoliation context but did not expand tort to concealment)
- Viviano v. CBS, Inc., 597 A.2d 543 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991) (treated concealment as analogous to destruction in facts before that court)
- Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Los Angeles Cty. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (California rejected independent spoliation tort in favor of traditional remedies)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dooley, 243 P.3d 197 (Alaska 2010) (explained concealment without destruction is not the proper basis for an intentional-spoliation claim)