Mazzei v. Money Store, 656 F. App'x 558

Plaintiff Joseph Mazzei sued The Money Store and related entities on behalf of two nationwide classes asserting (1) a fee-splitting breach-of-contract theory and (2) a late-fee breach-of-contract theory; jury returned for defendants on fee-splitting and for Mazzei on late-fee.
Defendants outsourced invoicing to Fidelity, which used an electronic "New Invoice System" containing invoice records; those records were no longer preserved in their original, readily accessible form at trial.
Magistrate judge awarded limited sanctions (costs to determine current accessibility and fees/costs for the sanctions motion) and found defendants had practical and legal ability to preserve the database.
Mazzei moved for a new trial and sought an adverse-inference jury instruction based on alleged spoliation of the New Invoice System; district court denied additional sanctions and the Rule 59 motion.
District court found the New Invoice System data was tangential to the fee-splitting claim, that Mazzei could not show prejudice from the missing data, and that defendants lacked intent to deprive Mazzei of evidence.
District court excluded a proffered affidavit (Buechner Affidavit) as irrelevant and hearsay; Mazzei did not identify a hearsay exception or show how it would have changed the verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by refusing adverse-inference instruction for spoliation of electronic invoices	Mazzei: Fidelity's destroyed/unpreserved New Invoice System records were critical and warranted an adverse-inference instruction	Defendants: Records were tangential, many other sources existed, and defendants lacked intent to deprive	Court: No abuse of discretion; records were tangential, plaintiff failed to show prejudice, and no intent to deprive was found
Whether limited sanctions awarded were insufficient; whether additional sanctions required	Mazzei: Additional sanctions (adverse inference/new trial) required to remedy spoliation	Defendants: Limited sanctions were appropriate given record and lack of prejudice/intention	Court: Limited sanctions were affirmed; no further sanctions warranted
Admissibility of Buechner Affidavit proffered by Mazzei	Mazzei: Affidavit would support spoliation/fee-splitting theory	Defendants: Affidavit irrelevant and hearsay	Court: Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; Mazzei failed to show relevance or a hearsay exception
Whether denial of new trial on weight-of-evidence grounds is reviewable	Mazzei: New trial warranted on weight of evidence	Defendants: Weight-of-evidence denials are not reviewable on appeal	Court: Denial based on weight of evidence is not subject to appellate review

Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for adverse-inference instruction for spoliation; prejudice required absent clear sanctionable conduct)
Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (threefold purpose for spoliation sanctions: deterrence, shifting risk, restoring harmed party)
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) (prejudice required to disturb jury verdict for spoliation issues)
Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt. Corp., 73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1995) (denial of new trial on weight-of-evidence grounds not reviewable on appeal)