Howard et al v. Bosch Thermotechnology Corp.

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Bosch Thermotechnology Corp.'s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence 32 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 2/26/2018. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS E. HOWARD, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOSCH THERMOTECHNOLOGY
CORP.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17 CV 763 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Howards’ house burned to the ground in November 2013. In this
products liability action, they claim that the defective design of a water heater
manufactured, designed, and sold by defendant Bosch Thermotechnology Corp.
caused the fire. Bosch now requests sanctions in the form of default judgment
against the Howards, arguing that the demolition of what was remaining of the
burned home was tantamount to spoliation of evidence because the demolition
destroyed evidence that could have shown that the fire was caused by something
other than the Bosch water heater. The Howards oppose the motion, contending
that they did not engage in any sanctionable conduct. Upon careful consideration
of the parties’ respective positions and the evidence submitted in support, I will
deny the motion.
Within the Eighth Circuit, a district court may dismiss an action as a

sanction for spoliation of evidence only if the court finds that plaintiff intentionally
destroyed the evidence, “’indicating a desire to suppress the truth.’” Menz v. New
Holland N. Am., Inc., 440 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Stevenson v.
Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739, 746 (8th Cir. 2004)); Johnson v. Avco Corp.,
702 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1111 (E.D. Mo. 2010). There is no evidence that the
Howards intentionally destroyed any evidence in this action. Indeed, there is
evidence that the determination to demolish what remained of the burnt structure
was made by the fire marshal, and not by the Howards. The Howards’ decision to
retrieve the water heater and no other possible ignition source before demolition
was based on the fire marshal’s statement to Thomas Howard at the scene that the
water heater appeared to be the source of the fire. In these circumstances, I do not
find that the Howards engaged in any intentional act indicating a desire to suppress
the truth.
The sanction requested by Bosch is extreme, and its argument is far from
sufficient for me to enter judgment against the Howards or enter any other
sanction. Although Bosch argues that it has been prejudiced in its defense by its
inability to examine a preserved site for evidence of other possible ignition
sources, mere prejudice is insufficient for me to enter judgment in a case as a
sanction for lost evidence. Menz, 440 F.3d at 1006 (to warrant dismissal as a
sanction for spoliation of evidence, there must be a finding of intentional
-2-

destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth); Johnson, 702 F. Supp. 2d at
1111. This is especially true here, where the action is one of products liability and
the defendant has had full access to the alleged defective product.
Bosch has failed to establish sufficient prejudice to warrant the significant
penalty requested. Nor is there evidence of any bad faith by the Howards.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Bosch Thermotechnology
Corp.’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence [32] is DENIED.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 26th day of February, 2018.

-3-