[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-279885-105":53,"doc-detail-279885-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","the-evidence-is-gone-now-what-sanctions-and-duties-for-spoliation-of-evidence-in-california-trial-and-pre-trial","The evidence is gone… now what? - Sanctions and duties for spoliation of evidence in California - Trial and pre-trial","","The article explains how California law addresses spoliation when a defendant destroys or fails to preserve evidence needed to meet a plaintiff’s burden of proof. It focuses on when the duty to preserve arises, including periods before litigation becomes pending or reasonably foreseeable. It also contrasts limited trial-phase remedies with expanded pre-trial options, discussing adverse-inference instructions and broader discovery-based sanctions. The text highlights how remedies may be fashioned when motions to compel are futile because the evidence is already unavailable.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/the-evidence-is-gone-now-what-sanctions-and-duties-for-spoliation-of-evidence-in-california-trial-and-pre-trial/279885/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-evidence-is-gone-now-what-sanctions-and-duties-for-spoliation-of-evidence-in-california-trial-and-pre-trial/279885.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"\tWilliam","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What triggers a defendant’s duty to preserve evidence in California?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"A duty arises when litigation is pending or when a party reasonably should know the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation, including periods before formal discovery requests.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"How do remedies for spoliation differ during trial versus before trial?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"During trial, remedies are more limited, such as adverse inference instructions. Before trial, courts have more sanction options for recompense depending on the conduct’s severity and likely prejudice.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Why may a motion to compel be unnecessary when evidence is already gone?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"When the evidence is no longer in the defendant’s possession, a motion to compel can be futile or an idle act, allowing the court to excuse compliance with the prerequisite and fashion an authorized remedy.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},279885,1790197438,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":76,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":9},5909887254083,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","[T](TRIAL PRACTICE www.plaintiffmagazine.com)[RIAL](TRIAL PRACTICE www.plaintiffmagazine.com)[ P](TRIAL PRACTICE www.plaintiffmagazine.com)[RACTICE](TRIAL PRACTICE www.plaintiffmagazine.com)[ www.plaintiffmagazine.com](TRIAL PRACTICE www.plaintiffmagazine.com)  \nAUGUST 2023  \nThe evidence is gone…now what?  \nOvercoming obstacles caused by defendant’s destruction or failure to preserve evidence  \nBy Gelareh Sara Golriz  \nAs a plaintiff’s attorney, the burden of proof to present evidence to support your client’s claim rests with you. However, what happens if a defendant destroys or fails topreserve crucial evidence that would permit you to meet that burden? The consequences of defendant’s actions – or lack thereof– differ based on when you are seeking redress. During the trial phase, the remedy for spoliation is limited. CACI instruction 204 – Willful Suppression – provides for an adverse inference instruction against the party responsible for the intentional concealment or destruction of evidence. However, if you are seeking redress prior to trial, more options for recompense are available depending on the egregiousness of defendant’s actions and the likelihood of prejudice to your client. As set forth below, the variety of sanctions available prior to trial allows you a higher likelihood of overcoming obstacles caused by defendant’s destruction or failure to preserve evidence.  \nWhen the duty to preserve evidence arises  \nThe most important aspect of a successful motion for an order sanctioning  \na defendant for spoliation of evidence is establishing the spoliation occurred after the duty to preserve evidence arose. The notion of a defendant’s “duty to preserve evidence” constituted a pivotal aspect in the landmark case, Williams v. Russ. Williams was a legal malpractice action wherein the plaintiff requested his case files from defendant attorney. (Williams v. Russ,(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th, 1223.) The defendant provided the original file but did not retain a copy. Plaintiff placed these files in a storage facility, failed to pay the storage fees – despite warnings – and defaulted on the account. Consequently, the files were destroyed by the facility. Plaintiff never informed defendant of their destruction. Defendant requested the file three years later and was informed it was destroyed. ([Id](Id. at)[. at](Id. at) 1224.) The court in Williams held that defendant has a“duty to preserve evidence for another’suse in pending or future litigation, even if that evidence has not been specifically requested in discovery.”([Id](Id. at)[. at](Id. at) 1223.) The court found that plaintiff’s knowledge of the existence and relevance of the evidence and subsequent failure topreserve the evidence rose to the level of intentional destruction of evidence and imposed terminating sanctions. (Ibid.)  \n“The duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before the litigation when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.”(Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court,(2023) Cal.App.5th 940, 957-958.) Consequently, an essential aspect to comprehend when pursuing sanctions is that based on California law, prohibition against the destruction of evidence extends beyond situations where the plaintiff has explicitly requested its preservation. The law also recognizes the obligation to preserve evidence that may potentially be relevant in future litigation, even if it has not been previously requested through discovery. (Stephen Schlesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,(2007)  \n155 Cal.App.4th, 736.)  \nIn addition to the general caselaw regarding the importance of complying with discovery requests and the potential consequences of failing to do so, there is also specific caselaw related to personal injury claims. In Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc., the California Supreme Court held that a party has a duty to preserve evidence when “litigatio","cbCaifvQSiQgegMB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifvQSiQgegMB","pdf",1498654,"English","# The evidence is gone… now what?\n## When the duty to preserve evidence arises\n## Redress for spoliation as misuse of the discovery process","[{\"question\":\"What triggers a defendant’s duty to preserve evidence in California?\",\"answer\":\"A duty arises when litigation is pending or when a party reasonably should know the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation, including periods before formal discovery requests.\"},{\"question\":\"How do remedies for spoliation differ during trial versus before trial?\",\"answer\":\"During trial, remedies are more limited, such as adverse inference instructions. Before trial, courts have more sanction options for recompense depending on the conduct’s severity and likely prejudice.\"},{\"question\":\"Why may a motion to compel be unnecessary when evidence is already gone?\",\"answer\":\"When the evidence is no longer in the defendant’s possession, a motion to compel can be futile or an idle act, allowing the court to excuse compliance with the prerequisite and fashion an authorized remedy.\"}]","The evidence is gone… now what? - Sanctions and duties for spoliation of evidence in California - Trial and pre-trial | PDF",1789529178]