#DUTY TO INFORM IN OHIO TRIAL#

In so holding, the Court relied on other states, which had found that intentional spoliation is not the appropriate cause of action when evidence is concealed, but not destroyed. It held that the Plaintiff must show evidence was physically altered or destroyed in order to prevail on a spoliation claim. Intentional Concealment and Interference is not SpoilationĪlthough Elliott-Thomas argued that the Court had originally intended a broader interpretation of the term willful destruction of evidence that would include “intentional concealment and interference” when it recognized the spoliation claim in Smith v. (5) damages proximately caused by the defendant’s acts. (4) disruption of the plaintiff’s case, and (3) willful destruction of evidence by the defendant designed to disrupt the plaintiff’s case, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that litigation exists or is probable, (1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff, The Court found that Ohio is one of the few jurisdictions that recognize an independent tort of intentional spoliation of evidence, and its elements are: The Supreme Court recognized a conflict between the appellate districts on the issue and accepted the case. Rather, it found “the intentional concealment, interference with or misrepresentation of evidence was sufficient for that claim.” However, the Court of Appeals reversed and found that a plaintiff did not need to present evidence of “actual destruction or alteration of physical evidence” in order to prevail on a spoliation claim.

#DUTY TO INFORM IN OHIO TRIAL#

The trial court granted the attorneys’ motion for summary judgment because Elliott-Thomas was unable to establish that either of them had “physically destroyed evidence.” Elliott-Thomas alleged the two attorneys “intentionally withheld, hid, altered, and/or destroyed evidence relevant to her wrongful termination case.” While that case was pending, she filed a separate case against two attorneys representing the School District for spoliation of evidence. Kristen Elliott-Thomas sued the Warren City School District (“School District”), its Board of Education and five Board members alleging wrongful termination and sex discrimination. The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that Civil Procedure Rule 37 provides the remedy against attorneys that interfere with or conceal evidence in discovery, rather than a spoliation claim. Rule 37 Sanctions is the Appropriate Remedy for Interference with or Concealment of Evidence, not Spoliation Claim

Duty to inform in ohio