Foulger v. Avertest, LLC
4:22-cv-00878
| E.D. Mo. | Jan 17, 2025Background
- Eight plaintiffs from Arizona, Massachusetts, and Michigan sued Averhealth, alleging negligent drug testing led to false positives affecting child custody, employment, and causing emotional distress.
- Plaintiffs allege that Averhealth failed to follow proper testing protocols, had poor quality controls, and mishandled data, with additional claims based on information from a former lab employee, Dr. Riley.
- The Second Amended Complaint includes claims of negligence (all plaintiffs), consumer protection violations (Massachusetts and Arizona plaintiffs), and breach of contract (Arizona plaintiff only).
- Plaintiffs moved for sanctions, claiming Averhealth lost or destroyed key evidence: Foulger’s hair sample, chain of custody records, and certain lab analyses/data packs.
- Averhealth admitted to losing or destroying some materials but argued it followed standard document retention policies and denied acting in bad faith.
- The court had previously denied Averhealth’s motion to dismiss and partially granted/denied requests related to discovery, including ordering attorney’s fees against Averhealth for unjustified discovery conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of Foulger's hair sample | Destruction hindered ability to verify/test evidence | Loss unintentional; no prejudice to Foulger | Sanctions likely; hearing needed |
| Destruction of chain of custody documents | Destroyed evidence hampered case and was suspicious | Destruction per retention policy; no prejudice | No sanctions |
| Destruction of lab analyses/data packs | Loss prevents full challenge to test validity | Deletion per policy, unrelated to litigation | No sanctions |
| Standard for imposition of sanctions | Bad faith not required for all sanctions | No bad faith; destruction accidental | Bad faith needed for harsh sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. BNSF Rwy. Co., 681 F. Supp. 3d 899 (S.D. Iowa 2023) (discussing sanctions for discovery misconduct)
- Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Wade, 485 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2007) (intent to suppress required for spoliation sanction)
- Morris v. Union Pac. R.R., 373 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2004) (court may infer intent from circumstances in spoliation)
- Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., 986 F.2d 263 (8th Cir. 1993) (destruction of crucial evidence warrants sanctions)
- Koons v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 367 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2004) (sanctions unwarranted if lost documents not crucial to case)
- White v. United States, 959 F.3d 328 (8th Cir. 2020) (refusal to sanction where evidence deleted under standard protocol)