542 F.Supp.3d 439
E.D. La.2021Background
- April 2018: Gabriel Lasala’s 2016 World Cat 295CC allided with a fixed platform; the boat later broke free and washed ashore.
- Foremost (insurer) adjusters Corey Sandborn and Diane Stanley contacted Sea Tow and Copart to retrieve and store the vessel and requested the boat be wrapped and held for inspection.
- Neither adjuster followed Foremost’s formal salvage/hold protocol (the correct employees were not contacted); the boat was sold by Copart on July 3, 2018, removed August 3, 2018, and subsequently scrapped.
- Multiple parties (Lasalas, Pressers, Cantium, others) asserted intentional spoliation claims under Louisiana law (La. Civ. Code art. 2315) against Foremost; court previously dismissed negligent-spoliation claims.
- Foremost moved for summary judgment on intentional-spoliation only, arguing lack of any evidence of intent to destroy the vessel; opponents argued disputed intent, procedural discovery gaps, and that protocol failures supported an inference of intentional destruction.
- Court granted Foremost’s motion: evidence showed negligence (failure to follow procedure) but not intentional destruction to deprive evidence; outstanding discovery arguments were rejected as untimely or irrelevant to intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs can prove intentional spoliation of the vessel | Plaintiffs (Lasalas/Pressers) say procedural failures, Foremost’s history, and actions surrounding the sale support an inference of intent to destroy evidence | Foremost says no evidence of bad faith or intent; adjusters believed the vessel was being preserved | Court: No genuine issue of material fact on intent; evidence shows negligence not intent — summary judgment for Foremost |
| Whether failure to follow Foremost’s hold protocol amounts to intentional spoliation | Plaintiffs argue deviation from policy and lack of coordination supports intent | Foremost argues protocol breach was inadvertent/ignorant and insufficient to prove intent | Court: Policy breach shows negligence, not intentional destruction; insufficient for spoliation claim |
| Whether issues of intent preclude summary judgment when intent is essential | Plaintiffs contend intent is credibility-based and rarely resolvable on summary judgment | Foremost contends summary judgment is appropriate where record cannot support a finding of intent | Court: Intent issue does not preclude summary judgment here; judge as future trier could not reasonably find intent from the record |
| Whether outstanding discovery prevents summary judgment (Pressers’ contention) | Pressers assert late-discovered witness IDs and withheld materials could produce evidence of intent | Foremost says discovery closed, plaintiffs delayed depositions, and produced files already disclosed contained names | Court: Discovery arguments rejected—plaintiffs were not diligent and additional discovery would not likely change the lack of evidence on intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute and weighing evidence at summary judgment)
- Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395 (5th Cir.) (treating evidence evaluation and summary judgment standards)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir.) (limits on defeating summary judgment with conclusory evidence)
- Matter of Placid Oil Co., 932 F.2d 394 (5th Cir.) (bench-trial judge may draw inferences at summary judgment anticipating role as factfinder)
- Guillory v. Domtar Indus. Inc., 95 F.3d 1320 (5th Cir.) (intent issues and summary judgment considerations)
- Krim v. BancTexas Grp. Inc., 989 F.2d 1435 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment appropriate even when intent is an essential element)
- Clavier v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 112 So. 3d 881 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (defining spoliation under Louisiana law)