Judgment of US District court on motion for a Negative Inference Based upon Plaintiff’s Alleged Deletion of Emails

As noted
above in the context of the Defendants’ motion in limine seeking a negative inference regarding
the alleged destruction of evidence, the parties have not provided any basis beyond mere
speculation to conclude that evidence was in fact destroyed by Mr. Accurso. Mr. Land’s
speculation on such issues would not be any help to the fact finder in this case. Mr. Land will
also not be permitted to offer his opinion that Mr. Accurso’s solicitation of business constituted
tortious interference or was otherwise legally improper.

The court denied the defendants' motion because the defendants did not provide any evidence that "there was actual suppression or destruction of evidence, let alone that [the plaintiff] was responsible for the suppression or destruction of this evidence, that this evidence cannot be obtained from other sources or that [the plaintiff] acted with the intent to deprive the Defendants of access to the information." The court’s denial was without prejudice and with an acknowledgment that the defendants could raise it again at trial, depending upon the actual evidence admitted.

This case is significant because it recognizes that the new Rules require evidence of actual destruction or suppression by one of the parties with the intent to deceive the other party of access.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETER ACCURSO, : CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, :
v. :
INFRA-RED SERVICES, INC., et al., : NO. 13-7509
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM
PRATTER, J. MARCH 11, 2016

Print Page