Also known as: spoliation inferences · adverse inference · spoliation adverse inference
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary principle allowing a factfinder to presume that evidence destroyed or not produced by a party would have been adverse to that party. The inference arises when a party had a duty to preserve the evidence, acted with a culpable state of mind in destroying or failing to preserve it, and the evidence was relevant to a claim or defense.
Skylar Sullivan faced criminal charges and chose not to preserve key video recordings after learning of an investigation. Her counsel made a timely request for an instruction directing the jury not to draw any inference from the missing footage. The court refused, allowing the jury to treat the destruction as evidence of guilt.
Sapphire Technologies anticipated litigation with a former employee and issued a litigation hold, yet its IT staff continued deleting relevant emails. The court found the deletions willful and permitted the jury to infer that the destroyed messages would have supported the employee's claims.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Seth Shapiro refused to produce financial ledgers at a civil hearing after learning suit was imminent. The court instructed the factfinder that it could draw an adverse inference from the destruction, treating the missing records as evidence that his accounts would have been unfavorable.
Solomon Silver discarded counseling notes after learning a patient might sue. The court found the destruction negligent and relevant, allowing the jury to infer that the notes would have harmed Silver's defense.
Stonehaven Properties withheld inspection reports during discovery in a fraud suit. The court imposed an adverse-inference sanction, permitting the jury to presume the reports would have shown the company knew of the defects.
A party must prove the opposing party had a duty to preserve the evidence at the time of destruction, acted with a culpable state of mind, and that the evidence was relevant to a claim or defense. Ordinary negligence can suffice for the culpable-state element in some circuits.
No. While bad-faith destruction alone can establish relevance, ordinary negligence is enough to support the inference when the other elements are met.
The duty arises when a party reasonably anticipates litigation, at which point it must suspend routine destruction policies and implement a litigation hold.
Yes. When a lawyer's culpable spoliation prevents the client from proving the underlying claim, courts may apply the inference to remedy the harm.
…(1918) (cases cited therein). [^maj-16]: To demur, a party would admit the truth of all the facts adduced against him and every adverse inference that could be drawn therefrom, and the court would determine which party should receive judgment on the basis of these admitted facts and inferences. See Slocum v. New York Life Ins.…