[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-279884-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":80,"doc-detail-279884-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","leveraging-ab-251-in-spoliation-cases-a-roadmap-to-a-lowered-burden-of-proof","Leveraging AB 251 in Spoliation Cases - A Roadmap to a Lowered Burden of Proof","","Elder abuse litigation under California’s EADACPA standard often confronts spoliation of critical evidence held exclusively by long-term care defendants, including care records and facility-wide operational materials. AB 251, effective January 1, 2026, authorizes judges to lower the burden of proof from “clear and convincing” to “preponderance of the evidence” when specified findings show material evidence destruction. The guidance focuses on early, comprehensive preservation steps, including direct written notice to facility decision-makers and follow-up letters to capture all relevant paper and electronically stored records to strengthen liability arguments.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/","General",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/leveraging-ab-251-in-spoliation-cases-a-roadmap-to-a-lowered-burden-of-proof/279884/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/leveraging-ab-251-in-spoliation-cases-a-roadmap-to-a-lowered-burden-of-proof/279884.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Mason","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":26},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What problem does AB 251 target in elder abuse cases?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"AB 251 addresses challenges in proving liability when defendants destroy or fail to preserve material evidence central to EADACPA claims.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"When can a court lower the burden of proof under AB 251?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"A court may lower the burden from “clear and convincing” to “preponderance” if the defendant facility spoliated material evidence under the specified circumstances, including destruction before legal time requirements, outside written retention policies, or after a written preservation demand.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What early action does the article recommend for evidence preservation?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Prepare and send an immediate, comprehensive preservation of evidence letter directly to the facility’s licensed administrator, licensee, and parent corporation, then send certified follow-up letters and retain proof of mailing and receipt.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},279884,1789529177,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,88,93,98,103,108,113,118,123],{"id":84,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"general-158",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":127},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":124,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":26,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":30,"language":135,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":79,"read_time":22},5909887256941,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","General Practice  \nLeveraging AB 251 in Spoliation Cases: A Roadmap to a Lowered Burden of Proof  \nBy Karman Guadagni  \nI. Long-Term Care’s Dirty Secret: Spoliation in Elder Abuse Cases  \nPlaintiffs’ attorneys pursuing Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA) cases against California long-term care facilities have long lamented the pervasive challenges involved in holding defendants and their counsel responsible for the spoliation of key evidence at trial. Key evidence sources, including not only those reflecting the care provided (or in many cases not provided) to a specific elderly resident (i.e. medical records, logs, surveillance footage), but also evidence of the overall operations of the facility (e.g., evidence of staffing levels, staff training, internal memoranda, budgets, emails and other financial documents), are often in the exclusive control of the defendants.  \nFrequently, obtaining a complete production of documents or even a clear response in discovery as to whether the evidence exists or was destroyed often only comes after toiling through countless  \nKarman Guadagni is the managing partner of Stebner Gertler & Guadagni, in San Francisco. She represents California’s most vulnerable and dependent and holds corporationsand operators accountable at trial. [www.sgg-lawfirm.com](www.sgg-lawfirm.com)  \ndepositions and discovery motions. Moreover, despite statutory mandates1 requiring the maintenance of certain categories of employee hours and other information, facilities and their owners often feign ignorance or hide behind clever document retention and destruction policies to excuse away their tactics. Exposing these hide-the-ball tactics is yet another hurdle for plaintiffs and their counsel faced with establishing liability against the defendants’officers, directors and/or managing agents under EADACPA’s high“clear and convincing”2 standard.  \nHowever, beginning January 1, 2026, game-changing legislation went into effect in the form of AB 251, sponsored by Ash Kalra and backed by CAOC, which provides a powerful tool for plaintiffs seeking justice when crucial evidence against bad actors is destroyed in elder abuse cases. This article will provide a deeper understanding of the new legislation, its implications, and practical strategies for leveraging it for the benefit of your own clients.  \nII. AB 251: Analysis of the 2025 Legislation  \nEssentially, AB 251 (which is codified asan amendment to Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657 along with the addition of section 15657.02) grants California judges the discretion to lower the burden of proof from “clear and convincing” to“preponderance of the evidence” on an underlying EADACPA claim against askilled nursing facility, residential care  \nfacility for the elderly or community care facility, as long as the judge or arbitrator finds that the defendant facility spoliated material evidence3 under three specific circumstances. Specifically, the judge“shall consider” whether evidence has been destroyed:4 (1) prior to the expiration of legal time requirements; (2) outside of the party’s written records retention policy; or (3) after receipt of a written demand or request to preserve relevant records, documents or other evidence. As one other limiting factor, the spoliation mechanism provided by AB 251 only applies to “records, documents or other evidence” which is “material to” establishing the claim.5   \nAlthough the practical application of this change remains tobe seen in litigation, it is clear that elder abuse practitioners should take note and make changes to their case preparation strategy immediately in order to potentially benefit from this new legislation. Below are some practice pointers to consider at every stage in your case.  \nIII. The “Roadmap”: Making the Showing Early in Litigation  \nStep 1: Immediate and Comprehensive Preservation of Evidence Letters  \nIf you practice in this area, first on your list of immediate action items is to prepare ","cbCaioZwuZMU9SjF","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioZwuZMU9SjF","pdf",713457,"English","# I. Long-Term Care’s Dirty Secret: Spoliation in Elder Abuse Cases\n# II. AB 251: Analysis of the 2025 Legislation\n# III. The “Roadmap”: Making the Showing Early in Litigation\n## Step 1: Immediate and Comprehensive Preservation of Evidence Letters","[{\"question\":\"What problem does AB 251 target in elder abuse cases?\",\"answer\":\"AB 251 addresses challenges in proving liability when defendants destroy or fail to preserve material evidence central to EADACPA claims.\"},{\"question\":\"When can a court lower the burden of proof under AB 251?\",\"answer\":\"A court may lower the burden from “clear and convincing” to “preponderance” if the defendant facility spoliated material evidence under the specified circumstances, including destruction before legal time requirements, outside written retention policies, or after a written preservation demand.\"},{\"question\":\"What early action does the article recommend for evidence preservation?\",\"answer\":\"Prepare and send an immediate, comprehensive preservation of evidence letter directly to the facility’s licensed administrator, licensee, and parent corporation, then send certified follow-up letters and retain proof of mailing and receipt.\"}]","Leveraging AB 251 in Spoliation Cases - A Roadmap to a Lowered Burden of Proof | PDF"]