310 F.R.D. 510
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- Claimant Joseph Galioto alleges he was injured aboard the vessel Island Adventure on Dec. 15, 2012 when an unidentified passenger fell into him; he later filed a negligence counterclaim against vessel owner Boston Boat III, L.L.C. asserting unsafe carpeting/deck conditions.
- Boston Boat filed a limitation/exoneration action; Galioto answered and counterclaimed on Nov. 27, 2013 asserting defective/unsafe upper-deck carpet and underlying deck.
- Before Galioto’s expert inspected, Boston Boat removed all upper-deck carpeting and ground the deck to bare metal during a refurbishment; Boston Boat’s expert salvaged a 6"x6" carpet sample of unknown provenance.
- Galioto moved for spoliation sanctions (seeking default, then adverse-inference instructions or a rebuttable presumption of negligence); matter referred to the magistrate judge.
- The court found Boston Boat had a duty to preserve the carpet/deck, that the destroyed evidence was critical given the unidentified faller and expert reliance, and determined Boston Boat acted in bad faith (but not egregiously).
- Remedy: the court granted sanction in part — a rebuttable adverse inference that the destroyed evidence would have shown a dangerous condition Boston Boat knew, should have known, or created; Boston Boat may rebut at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal law or state law governs spoliation sanctions | Galioto: federal law governs but state law may inform; bad faith not required for a rebuttable presumption | Boston Boat: federal standards apply and require bad faith for adverse inference | Federal law controls; Eleventh Circuit precedent requires bad faith for adverse inference; court nonetheless found bad faith here |
| Whether carpet/deck removal constituted spoliation of critical evidence | Galioto: full carpeting and deck were critical because the faller is unidentified and expert inspection was necessary | Boston Boat: only a small sample remained and other evidence (photos, witnesses, video) can cure prejudice; renovations were routine business maintenance | Court: evidence was critical; 6"x6" sample's unknown location and grinding to metal made meaningful testing and location-specific analysis impossible |
| Whether Boston Boat acted in bad faith (required for severe sanctions) | Galioto: Boston Boat knew of suit and should have preserved evidence; counsel/owner failures show bad faith | Boston Boat: refurbishment was a business decision made long after incident, not spurred by litigation; not willful/spoliatory | Court: circumstantial evidence established bad faith (owner knew of suit, failed to consult counsel/oppose work, counsel did not halt work or notify claimant); bad faith found though not outrageous |
| Appropriate sanction for spoliation | Galioto: seeks default judgment or, alternatively, adverse inference or rebuttable presumption of negligence | Boston Boat: contest severity; say less drastic measures suffice and prejudice is cureable | Court imposed the least severe proper sanction: a rebuttable adverse inference that the destroyed evidence would have demonstrated a dangerous condition; Boston Boat may rebut at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Flury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 427 F.3d 939 (11th Cir. 2005) (federal law governs spoliation in admiralty and discusses preservation duties)
- Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2003) (definition/discussion of destruction of evidence)
- Bashir v. Amtrak, 119 F.3d 929 (11th Cir. 1997) (adverse inference requires bad faith)
- Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (confirms bad-faith requirement for spoliation adverse inference)
- In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567 (11th Cir. 1995) (inherent-power sanctions require bad faith)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (scope of court’s inherent sanctioning authority)
- Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (maritime slip-and-fall standards; delays in inspection go to weight not admissibility)