Below, Joshua et al v. Yokohama Tire Corporation et al

Filing 294

ORDER denying reserved portions of #72 Motion for Relief Due to Spoliation of Evidence; denying as moot any other pending motions. The clerk of court is directed to enter final judgment consistent with the court's ruling on summary judgment and the jury's trial verdict. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/9/2017. (kwf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOSHUA J. BELOW, by his guardian, DEBRA
BELOW, CHARLIE ELIZABETH BELOW, a
minor by her Guardian ad Litem, DANIEL A.
ROTTIER, and PATRICK JOSHUA BELOW, a
minor by his Guardian ad Litem, DANIEL A.
ROTTIER,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
15-cv-529-wmc

and
DEAN HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
Involuntary Plaintiff,
and
STAR BLUE BELOW-KOPF, by her Guardian
ad Litem, TERESA K. KOBELT,

v.

Intervening Plaintiff,

YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
This order addresses a final, pending issue after the jury trial in the
above-captioned matter that resulted in a verdict of no liability against defendants. (Dkt.
#292.) In earlier opinions addressing defendants’ motion for relief due to spoliation of
evidence, the court permitted defendants to take additional discovery regarding plaintiffs’
efforts to preserve evidence, reserving the possibility of additional sanctions, up to and
including monetary penalties against plaintiffs’ counsel. (Dkt. ## 251, 274.) While

continuing to be troubled by the failure of the investigators for plaintiffs’ law firm to take
adequate steps with a third-party salvage yard to preserve what remained of plaintiff
Joshua Below’s truck (albeit no longer owned by Below) at the time that firm was
retained and the firm’s failure to notify the likely defendants timely of its availability for
inspection, even after the investigators had inspected it repeatedly, the court does not
find their conduct so egregious as to justify any further sanctions, especially in light of
defendants’ inability to offer any additional evidence that would support a finding of bad
faith, even after taking the depositions of the investigators. Accordingly, the reserved
portions of defendants’ motion will be denied.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) The reserved portions of defendants’ motion for relief due to spoliation of
evidence (dkt. # 72) are DENIED.
2) Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3) The clerk of court is directed to enter final judgment consistent with the
court’s ruling on summary judgment and the jury’s trial verdict.
Entered this 9th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2