Overview and Summary

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

II. OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY

This chapter focuses on potential consequences of breach of the duty to preserve in Maryland courts, i.e., the spoliation doctrine that specifies when sanctions are appropriate and delineates what sanctions may be imposed. As discussed briefly in Chapter 9, many Maryland appellate decisions have relied on the four-step analysis set forth in a 1997 federal decision, White v. Office of the Public Defender. See e.g., City Homes v. Hazelwood, 210 Md. App. 615, 670, 63A.3d 713, 746 (2013) (citing White), cert. denied, 432 Md. 468, 69 A.3d 476 (2013),⁷ and Klupt v. Krongard, 126 Md. App. 179, 194—97, 728 A.2d 727 (citing White), cert. denied, 355 Md. 612, 735 A.2d 1107 (1999).

A persuasive body of recent case law suggests that spoliation decisions should be made using a different four-step analysis:

(1) Was the duty to preserve breached?

(a) Was the duty triggered and, if so, when?

(b) If triggered, what is the scope of the duty?

(c) What are the limits on the scope of the duty?⁸

(2) Was there a sufficiently culpable state of mind?

(3) Was the innocent party prejudiced?

(4) If so, what sanction, if any, is appropriate?

(a) Should the sanction be "game ending," such as a default judgment or adverse inference instruction; or,

(b) Limited to "leveling the playing field," such as monetary damages or limited evidence preclusion?

If the answer to any of questions 1 through 3 is no, spoliation cannot arise. Spoliation is defined, and the culpability standard discussed, in Section III. Sections IV through VII will explain the state of the Maryland spoliation doctrine, providing analysis under both the Maryland Rules and...