Chi Nguyen v. Costco:

Chi Nguyen filed a motion for sanctions alleging the spoliation of evidence. Nguyen had slipped and fallen at a Costco 2 years prior to filing a slip and fall claim. Nguyen alleged that Costco had failed to preserve and deleted video that would show Nguyen falling at a checkout counter. Costco argued that they had no duty to preserve the video because Nguyen never made a written request to preserve the video. Costco further argued Costco had produced the relevant video in their possession and that there is no video of the disputed areas because the cameras do not cover the area.

The court denied the motion for sanctions. The court held that Costco had no duty to preserve the video because Costco could not reasonably anticipate litigation arising from the plaintiff’s fall at the store. Moreover, the plaintiff has was not given notice of the litigation prior to the filing of the litigation which occurred two years after the alleged slip and fall. Additionally, even if a duty to preserve had arisen, there was no evidence that the video photographed the area where the slip and fall occurred. The unrebutted evidence provided by the defendant was that the video would not have captured any part of the slip and fall. The motion for sanctions was denied because the plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged spoliated ESI should have been preserved or that the video was lost because the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 44]

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 45]

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 49]