Kolas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 40

ORDER Re: 35 Motion Adverse Presumption or Inference Due to Defendant's Spoliation of Evidence. IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file, no later than 3/23/18, statements no longer than three pages in length explaining whether Plaintiff 's motion should be denied without prejudice to being renewed concurrently with the filing of the parties' joint proposed pretrial order (i.e., after the summary judgment stage of litigation). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
RUTH KOLAS,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01597-APG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 35)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference instruction and to
preclude certain testimony. Docket No. 35.

18

Federal courts have broad discretion in controlling their dockets. See, e.g., Landis v. N.

19

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Courts also have a “general duty to avoid deciding

20

unnecessary issues.” Turner v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 810 F.2d 612, 613 n.3 (7th Cir. 1987). To that

21

end, courts may sequence motion practice in an effort to avoid deciding unnecessary issues and will

22

generally resolve motions regarding trial after it is clear that there will likely be a trial. See, e.g., Local

23

Rule 16-3(a) (setting deadline for filing motions in limine at 30 days before trial).

24

Plaintiff’s pending motion is premised on her contention that the alleged spoliation of evidence

25

“has prevented [her] from presenting [that] evidence at trial.” Docket No. 35 at 14. As a remedy,

26

Plaintiff seeks an order for an adverse inference jury instruction and an order precluding certain

27

testimony. See, e.g., id. at 11. Discovery remains open for another three months, however, and

28

summary judgment motions are not due for four months. See Docket No. 34. Unless either the

1

dispositive motions deadlines lapses without a motion for summary judgment or any filed summary

2

judgment motions are denied, it is not clear that there will be a trial in this case. Nor is it clear whether

3

additional pertinent information may be derived through the discovery process. Hence, it is not clear

4

that Plaintiff’s motion seeking relief regarding trial should be decided at this time. See, e.g., Swindell

5

Dressler Int’l Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 827 F. Supp. 2d 498, 508 (W.D. Penn. 2011) (denying

6

as premature spoliation motion seeking adverse inference because case was still in discovery phase,

7

motions for summary judgment had not been filed, and a pretrial order had not been issued); see also

8

Ingram v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 690 Fed. Appx. 527, 530 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Since adverse inference

9

instructions are provided to juries at the conclusion of trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion

10

by denying Ingram’s request for an adverse inference at the summary judgment stage of these

11

proceedings”).

12

The parties shall file, no later than March 23, 2018, statements no longer than three pages in

13

length explaining whether Plaintiff’s motion should be denied without prejudice to being renewed

14

concurrently with the filing of the parties’ joint proposed pretrial order (i.e., after the summary judgment

15

stage of litigation).

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: March 16, 2018

18
19

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2