I always assume that people who like NASCAR are really watching for the wrecks. The cars loop around the track for hours, but only the wrecks make the highlight reels. In a recent Texas Supreme Court case, the high court considered whether a supermarket was liable for destruction of evidence when it retained only the video recorded around the time of a slip and fall after its looped camera system deleted the rest.
The case is Brookshire Brothers Ltd. v. Aldridge at the Texas Supreme Court (for those of you outside of Texas, Brookshire Brothers is a supermarket).
In the Brookshire case, a slip and fall claim made it to the SCOTX because Brookshire had allowed a security camera (on a loop) to record over all but a few minutes before and after of the actual fall. At the heart of Brookshire’s reasoning for recording over the video was the risk manager’s mistaken belief that the time prior to the fall was “not relevant”.
Even folks not familiar with the law have a general concept that destroying evidence is a bad thing. The question in practical terms in a real lawsuit is – what is “evidence”. At the heart of that question is relevance to the dispute. That concept fills volumes of scholarly papers. I won’t go into it here.
It is enough to know in the Brookshire case that the deleted portion of the looped tape was relevant, destroyed and the subject of the appeal. The Brookshire opinion is helpful for a few reasons, but primarily because it attempts to give a bright line to follow for dealing with a potential spoliation issue (which is the fancy name for “destroying evidence”).
For the lawyers reading, the SCOTX sets forth the test to determine after the fact whether evidence has been spoiled.
- The trial judge gets to decide whether spoliation has occurred.
- If so, did the party have a duty to reasonably preserve the evidence and did the party negligent breach that duty by failing to do so.
If the Judge determines that evidence has been destroyed, then the Judge gets to decide the remedy (which might include a spoliation instruction to the jury).
Important for the lenders on the front end – According to the SCOTX:
- The duty to preserve arises when a party reasonably knows there is a substantial chance that a claim will be filed, and
- That evidence in its possession or control will be material and relevant to the case.
- Substantial chance of litigation means: when litigation is more than an abstract possibility or fear.
For the lenders, the take home rule is that if you spoil evidence either intentionally or negligently, after being aware of the claim you might be liable.
(A side concern is when does the duty actually arise? In a future post I may go over litigation hold letters if anyone is interested)
Once you have spoiled evidence, the remedies are wide-ranging and unpleasant. In Texas, if the spoliation was intentional then the jury may be instructed that all the spoiled evidence will reflect negatively on the spoiler. Meaning, even if the destroyed evidence actually showed you doing the right thing, the court may instruct the jury that you were doing the wrong thing.
The Brookshire’s case is more than important to lenders. Forget for a moment that this is a slip and fall grocery store case. Rather, assume this is a lender liability suit and consider the volume of data that is aggregated and deleted daily in your databases. For lenders, that alleged bad act rarely occurs in the branch office, but rather in the broader lending relationship. The email statements, verbal statements, internal memos, meeting notes, calendar entries, etc. may be evidence at the next lender liability lawsuit. At what rate are those being deleted and by whom? Importantly, what does your retention policy look like?
Some clients have systems that automatically delete data as the data stream goes forward. (Not to say that a doc retention policy can’t do that, but when a duty to preserve arises it generally will trump the retention policy.) The lesson here is that regardless of whether your data is being deleted on a loop or not, you still want to be able to preserve all the information about the crash and not just the crash itself.