Incardone v. Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd.

The plaintiffs brought an action against Defendant seeking compensation for psychological trauma sustained by their children during a cruise where the cruise encountered a major winter storm with hurricane-force winds. Defendant produced 91 minutes of CCTV footage out of a possible 14,400 minutes of a 72-hour cruise. Plaintiffs sought an amended spoliation motion with sanctions either as a request for a permissible adverse inference presumption or alternatively an Order preventing RCCL’s witnesses from testifying about the contents of CCTV footage and advising the jury that RCCL had the video footage and VDR “at one time, but it is no longer available.”

The court denied the amended spoliation motion. The court held that Defendant did not violate their duty to preserve ESI when only 91 minutes was preserved. First, Defendant only needed to produce footage from when the storm occurred and not the entire cruise. Second, Defendant had no duty to preserve footage from cameras that did not depict the effects of the storm. Third, Defendant was not required to produce duplicative footage. The 91 minutes was sufficient production because the footage showed the ship through the worst of the storm. Further, since the production showed the worst that the ship underwent, the Plaintiffs did not suffer prejudice, and Defendant did not act with an intent to deprive.

Amended Spoliation Motion on CCTV and VDR [Doc. 388]

Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Amended Spoliation Motion on CCTV and VDR [Doc. 392]

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Amended Motion for Spoliation [Doc. 392]

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Amended Spoliation Motion on CCTV and VDR [Doc. 434]