Ihli v. Lazzaretto, 2015 ND 151

Ihli sued Lazzaretto for negligent remodeling after a 2011 flood and February 2012 bid acceptance.
Dispute over the quality of work led Lazzaretto to stop work; Ihli later sought disaster-relief funding in 2013.
Ihli sued July 23, 2013; Lazzaretto sought and obtained extensions to answer; Ihli demolished the house in September 2013 after discovery of disaster funds.
Lazzaretto served its answer September 13, 2013; sanctions for spoliation were pursued by Lazzaretto in June 2014; Ihli moved to amend to add a breach of contract claim.
The district court denied Ihli’s amendment, granted sanctions, and dismissed Ihli’s claims; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and ordered double costs due to appellate rule noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for spoliation was an abuse of discretion	Ihli contends dismissal was overly severe	Lazzaretto argues dismissal is warranted for willful spoliation	No abuse; dismissal approved as appropriate sanction.
Whether the denial of the motion to amend was an abuse of discretion	Amendment would add a breach claim with no prejudice to Lazzaretto	Untimely and futile to amend after deadline	No abuse; amendment denied as untimely and futile.
Whether double costs on appeal were proper	N/A	N/A	Double costs awarded for Ihli’s appellate-rule noncompliance.

Fines v. Ressler Enters., Inc., 820 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 2012) (sanctions for spoliation may include dismissal when egregious and no adequate alternative)
Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs., 544 N.W.2d 122 (N.D. 1996) (three-factor test for spoliation sanctions; considers culpability, prejudice, and alternatives)
Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs., 507 N.W.2d 527 (N.D. 1993) (early formulation of spoliation sanctions framework)