Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court
74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248, 18 Cal. 4th 1, 954 P.2d 511 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
There is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction or suppression of evidence (spoliation) by a party to the underlying litigation when the spoliation is or should have been discovered before the conclusion of that litigation.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Kristopher Schon Bowyer sustained injuries, allegedly from oxygen deprivation, during his birth at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
- Bowyer, through his guardian, initiated a medical malpractice action against the hospital.
- During pretrial discovery, Bowyer's attorney requested copies of his medical records from the hospital.
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center was unable to produce certain records, including the fetal monitoring strips that recorded Bowyer's heartbeat during labor.
- Bowyer alleged that the hospital had intentionally destroyed these records to prevent him from succeeding in his malpractice claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristopher Schon Bowyer sued Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in trial court for medical malpractice.
- Bowyer filed a second amended complaint, adding a cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence and seeking punitive damages.
- The trial court granted the hospital's motion to strike the punitive damages claim for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
- Bowyer then filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint that included the punitive damages claim, which the trial court granted.
- Cedars-Sinai, as petitioner, sought a writ of mandate from the intermediate Court of Appeal to compel the trial court to vacate its order.
- The Court of Appeal denied the hospital's petition.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a separate tort cause of action exist for the intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the underlying litigation when the spoliation is discovered before the conclusion of that litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
No, a separate tort cause of action for intentional first-party spoliation does not exist under these circumstances. The court concluded that while destroying evidence is a grave wrong, creating a new tort remedy is undesirable for several policy reasons. First, it conflicts with the strong judicial policy against creating derivative torts to remedy litigation-related misconduct, which should be handled within the original lawsuit to ensure finality. Second, there are numerous existing and effective nontort remedies, including adverse evidentiary inferences (BAJI 2.03), a wide range of discovery sanctions, State Bar disciplinary action against attorneys, and criminal penalties. Third, the harm caused by spoliation is inherently speculative, as a jury would have to guess what the missing evidence would have shown and how it would have affected the outcome, making damages impossible to calculate accurately. The significant costs, potential for jury confusion, and risk of endless litigation outweigh any potential benefits of a new tort.
Concurring - Baxter, J.
This opinion concurs only in the judgment, not the reasoning, and argues the majority should not have decided the issue of whether a spoliation tort exists. The concurrence asserts that the issue was not properly raised in the lower courts and therefore was not before the Supreme Court for review. The proper question was limited to the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 regarding punitive damages. The concurrence agrees with the result—vacating the order allowing the punitive damages claim—but on the narrower ground that the plaintiff's evidentiary showing was insufficient to establish that a corporate officer, director, or managing agent was involved in the alleged spoliation, as required to hold a corporate employer liable for punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision effectively abolished the tort of intentional first-party spoliation of evidence in California when the misconduct is discovered before a final judgment. It forces litigants to address evidence destruction within the underlying lawsuit through established nontort remedies like discovery sanctions and adverse inference jury instructions. The ruling prioritizes judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments by preventing 'satellite litigation'—separate lawsuits arising from conduct in an initial case. By rejecting a tort remedy, the court signaled a strong preference for resolving all aspects of a dispute, including misconduct, in a single, comprehensive proceeding.
