Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-328, SECTION "L" (5)
December 3, 2002
ORDER REASONS
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion in limine for adverse inference instruction. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 10, 2001, Plaintiff was allegedly injured while working as a derrick hand and member of the crew of the RB Falcon Drilling, USA vessel known as Rig No. 9. Plaintiff claims that he was working with a co-worker to tighten a pop off valve using a wrench and cheetah pipe when the wrench that he was using slipped off of the nut, causing him to violently fall backwards onto a mud pump. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained severe injuries when he fell as a result of the broken/stripped wrench and cheetah pipe that he was using. Despite numerous requests to the Defendant, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to ever produce the wrench and cheetah pipe involved in the incident. In responses to discovery, Defense counsel represented that "the wrench and cheetah pipe involved in the incident were not set aside at the time of the accident." Plaintiff filed the current motion requesting that the Court instruct the jury that an adverse inference may be made because of the Defendant's failure to preserve relevant evidence-the wrench and cheetah pipe.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Plaintiff seeks to invoke the spoilation of evidence doctrine arguing that the fact finder may make an adverse inference against the party who destroys relevant evidence. Before a court may provide for an adverse inference, it must conclude both that a party had a duty to preserve the evidence and it must consider whether the evidence was intentionally destroyed. Menges v. Cliffs Drilling Co., No. 99-2159, 2000 WL 765082, at *2 (E.D. La. June 12, 2000). Specifically, the Fifth Circuit requires that there is a finding of bad faith on the part of the party who destroyed relevant evidence before an adverse inference may be allowed. Caparotta v. Energy Corp., 168 F.3d 754, 756 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding that an adverse inference drawn from the destruction of evidence is predicated on bad faith by the defendant); see also Vick v. Texas Employment Comm'n., 514 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff makes no allegations of bad faith on the part of the Defendant in failing to preserve the wrench and cheetah pipe; rather, the Plaintiff simply asserts that the Defendant should have known that the evidence was relevant and failed to preserve it despite this knowledge. Without any evidence of bad faith on the part of the Defendant in failing to preserve this evidence, it is not proper for this Court to give an adverse inference instruction.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's motion in limine for adverse inference instruction is DENIED.