ORDER (Docket No. 35)

*1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an adverse inference instruction and to preclude certain testimony. Docket No. 35. As Plaintiff's motion seeks trial-related remedies, the Court ordered the parties to indicate whether the motion is properly decided after the summary judgment phase of litigation. Docket No. 40. The parties have now filed such statements. Docket Nos. 44, 45. Plaintiff seeks resolution of the motion now, Docket No. 44, while Defendant contends that the motion is more properly resolved after summary judgment motions are decided. The Court agrees with Defendant.

Federal courts have broad discretion in controlling their dockets. See, e.g., Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Courts also have a “general duty to avoid deciding unnecessary issues.” Turner v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 810 F.2d 612, 613 n.3 (7th Cir. 1987). To that end, courts may sequence motion practice in an effort to avoid deciding unnecessary issues and will generally resolve trial-related motions after it is clear that there will likely be a trial. See, e.g., Local Rule 16-3(a) (setting deadline for filing motions in limine at 30 days before trial).

Plaintiff's pending motion is premised on her contention that the alleged spoliation of evidence “has prevented [her] from presenting [that] evidence at trial.” Docket No. 35 at 14. As a remedy, Plaintiff seeks an order for an adverse inference jury instruction and an order precluding certain testimony. See, e.g., id. at 11. Summary judgment motions are not due for four months. See Docket No. 34 (setting dispositive motion deadline for July 11, 2018). Until either the dispositive motions deadline lapses without a motion for summary judgment being filed or any filed summary judgment motions are denied, it is not clear that there will be a trial. As such, other courts have found it premature to decide a spoliation motion in similar procedural postures. See, e.g., Ingram v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 690 Fed. Appx. 527, 530 (9th Cir. May 3, 2017) (“Since adverse inference instructions are provided to juries at the conclusion of trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ingram's request for an adverse inference at the summary judgment stage of these proceedings”); Swindell Dressler Int'l Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 827 F. Supp. 2d 498, 508 (W.D. Penn. 2011) (finding spoliation motion for an adverse inference premature given that summary judgment motions had not yet been filed, a pre-trial order had not been issued, and a trial date had not been set).

In this case, Plaintiff seeks resolution of her motion now, indicating that further discovery is unnecessary on the issues raised. Docket No. 44 at 1-2. Regardless of whether that may be true, but see Docket No. 45 at 2 (noting that additional discovery may come to light relevant to spoliation issues), Plaintiff provides no persuasive reason why a trial-related motion should be decided before summary judgment motions.[1] The Court declines to decide issues that may be unnecessary, and exercises its broad discretion to deny the pending motion without prejudice to its later filing.[2] If this case proceeds past the summary judgment phase, a renewed motion shall be filed concurrently with the joint proposed pretrial order. To the extent both parties believe the previous briefing suffices on this issue, they may simply file a stipulation at that time for the previously-filed motion to be decided.

*2 Accordingly, the pending spoliation motion is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

[1]

In a single sentence, Plaintiff indicates that resolution of the motion “will provide the parties clarity in moving forward toward trial, and may facilitate resolution of this matter prior to trial.” Docket No. 44 at 2. This assertion misses the mark. The issue before the Court is whether the spoliation motion should be decided after summary judgment motions but before trial. In the event this case proceeds past the summary judgment phase, the motion will be decided before trial to provide the clarity sought.

[2]

It is within a magistrate judge's authority to decide a spoliation motion seeking an adverse inference. See, e.g., Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976, 984-89 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Accordingly, this ruling is fashioned as an order and not as a recommendation to the assigned district judge.

Kolas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Citation: 2018 WL 11444060 (D. Nev. 2018)

Summary: The plaintiff filed a motion for an adverse inference instruction and to preclude certain testimony due to alleged spoliation of evidence. The court denied the motion without prejudice, stating that trial-related motions should be decided after it is clear there will be a trial. The plaintiff can file a renewed motion if the case proceeds past the summary judgment phase. The court also noted that a magistrate judge has the authority to decide a spoliation motion seeking an adverse inference.

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date decided: March 23, 2018

Judge: Koppe, Nancy J.

Ruth KOLAS, Plaintiff(s), v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant(s) Case No. 2:17-cv-01597-APG-NJK United States District Court, D. Nevada Signed March 23, 2018 Counsel Alex De Castroverde, Orlando De Castroverde, Peter Petersen, Kimberly Valentin, De Castroverde Law Group, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff(s). Ryan Kerbow, Bernstein & Poisson, Las Vegas, NV, Timothy David Kuhls, Robert K. Phillips, Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant(s). Koppe, Nancy J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER (Docket No. 35) *1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an adverse inference instruction and to preclude certain testimony. Docket No. 35. As Plaintiff's motion seeks trial-related remedies, the Court ordered the parties to indicate whether the motion is properly decided after the summary judgment phase of litigation. Docket No. 40. The parties have now filed such statements. Docket Nos. 44, 45. Plaintiff seeks resolution of the motion now, Docket No. 44, while Defendant contends that the motion is more properly resolved after summary judgment motions are decided. The Court agrees with Defendant. Federal courts have broad discretion in controlling their dockets. See, e.g., Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Courts also have a “general duty to avoid deciding unnecessary issues.” Turner v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 810 F.2d 612, 613 n.3 (7th Cir. 1987). To that end, courts may sequence motion practice in an effort to avoid deciding unnecessary issues and will generally resolve trial-related motions after it is clear that there will likely be a trial. See, e.g., Local Rule 16-3(a) (setting deadline for filing motions in limine at 30 days before trial). Plaintiff's pending motion is premised on her contention that the alleged spoliation of evidence “has prevented [her] from presenting [that] evidence at trial.” Docket No. 35 at 14. As a remedy, Plaintiff seeks an order for an adverse inference jury instruction and an order precluding certain testimony. See, e.g., id. at 11. Summary judgment motions are not due for four months. See Docket No. 34 (setting dispositive motion deadline for July 11, 2018). Until either the dispositive motions deadline lapses without a motion for summary judgment being filed or any filed summary judgment motions are denied, it is not clear that there will be a trial. As such, other courts have found it premature to decide a spoliation motion in similar procedural postures. See, e.g., Ingram v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 690 Fed. Appx. 527, 530 (9th Cir. May 3, 2017) (“Since adverse inference instructions are provided to juries at the conclusion of trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ingram's request for an adverse inference at the summary judgment stage of these proceedings”); Swindell Dressler Int'l Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 827 F. Supp. 2d 498, 508 (W.D. Penn. 2011) (finding spoliation motion for an adverse inference premature given that summary judgment motions had not yet been filed, a pre-trial order had not been issued, and a trial date had not been set). In this case, Plaintiff seeks resolution of her motion now, indicating that further discovery is unnecessary on the issues raised. Docket No. 44 at 1-2. Regardless of whether that may be true, but see Docket No. 45 at 2 (noting that additional discovery may come to light relevant to spoliation issues), Plaintiff provides no persuasive reason why a trial-related motion should be decided before summary judgment motions.[1] The Court declines to decide issues that may be unnecessary, and exercises its broad discretion to deny the pending motion without prejudice to its later filing.[2] If this case proceeds past the summary judgment phase, a renewed motion shall be filed concurrently with the joint proposed pretrial order. To the extent both parties believe the previous briefing suffices on this issue, they may simply file a stipulation at that time for the previously-filed motion to be decided. *2 Accordingly, the pending spoliation motion is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] In a single sentence, Plaintiff indicates that resolution of the motion “will provide the parties clarity in moving forward toward trial, and may facilitate resolution of this matter prior to trial.” Docket No. 44 at 2. This assertion misses the mark. The issue before the Court is whether the spoliation motion should be decided after summary judgment motions but before trial. In the event this case proceeds past the summary judgment phase, the motion will be decided before trial to provide the clarity sought. [2] It is within a magistrate judge's authority to decide a spoliation motion seeking an adverse inference. See, e.g., Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976, 984-89 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Accordingly, this ruling is fashioned as an order and not as a recommendation to the assigned district judge.