Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Yes, it is true. During testimony when ALPA people were asked why they destroyed material evidence, they stated it was done during the normal course of deleting emails and other data. ALPA claimed they couldn't be held liable because they didn't know it was wrong for them to do so...therefore there was no intent to deceive or obstruct.
But luckily for TWA pilots, one laptop was missed during the data deletion process.
Carl
Really? The judge issued his opinion that there was
no proof that evidence was intentionally destroyed 2009 court order. It is true that the plaintiffs
argued that ALPA destroyed information purposely but they failed to prove to the court and when they asked the court for sanctions, which the judge
denied because there was
no proof of the
allegation.
IRENAS, Senior District Judge:
Before this Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, yet another skirmish in an eight year legal war. For the reasons set forth below, this Motion will be denied.An opinion disposing of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the same case will be filed simultaneously and reference is made thereto for the factual and legal background of this law suit.Plaintiffs, former TWA pilots, have for the life of this litigation been seeking the so-called “smoking gun” which would prove concretely, that the Air Line Pilots Association’s (“ALPA”) breached its duty of fair representation. This duty was owed to the Plaintiffs by ALPA because the union was the pilots’ exclusive representative during the TWA, Inc.-American Airlines assets acquisition. Plaintiffs contend the reason for the lack of the so-called smoking gun is ALPA’s spoliation of evidence. However, without specific evidence of fraud or bad faith, these allegations do not rise to the standard required for a finding of spoliation...
...Plaintiffs assert that ALPA intentionally or recklessly
destroyed documents, emails and other communication well into the discovery period for this lawsuit...Plaintiffs have failed to establish any evidence of bad faith, have failed to identify even one document or email favorable to their case that was lost or destroyed, and they have failed to specify any prejudice to their case “arising from the alleged oversights of which they accuse ALPA.” ...
...In other words, there must be a finding that the spoliation was intentional and that there was fraud and a desire to suppress the truth before the Court will make a finding of spoliation...
...The destruction of the boxes appears to have been accidental, and Plaintiffs have provided only speculation to prove the contrary. Plaintiffs rely on speculation with regards to email deletion. For example, 269 boxes of documents from ALPA’s TWA field office were destroyed by Iron Mountain, a document management and storage company used by ALPA. Plaintiffs claim these boxes, which were all allegedly relevant, were intentionally destroyed. However, as stated in a letter from Iron Mountain, the boxes were inadvertently destroyed. ..
...Furthermore, Plaintiffs use vague statements, such as: “ALPA’s spoliation was so widespread and covered such a long period of time it can only be concluded that substantial evidence was destroyed which would have been favorable to Plaintiffs.” Pl. Reply Motion for Sanctions, 17. Such a catch-all statement, along with vague speculation as to whether evidence has been destroyed or even whether evidence was relevant does not rise to the specificity level required by the Third Circuit to impose sanctions or even make a finding of spoliation...
via
eLesson