Joyce Lee v. Anwar, Inc., Save More Market, XYZ Insurance Company and Nautilus Insurance Company

JOYCE LEE NO. 2024 CW 0882

VERSUS

ANWAR, INC., SAVE MORE

MARKET, XYZ INSURANCE
NOVEMBER 25, 2024
COMPANY, AND NAUTILUS
INSURANCE COMPANY

In Re: Anwar, Inc. and Nautilus Insurance Company, applying for
19th Judicial District Court, Parish
supervisory writs,
of East Baton Rouge, No. 720165.

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, HESTER, GREENE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The portion of the district court' s August 15,
2024 judgment granting Plaintiff' s " Motion for Spoliation of

Evidence" is reversed. The burden of proof on a motion seeking an
adverse inference due to spoliation is on the
moving party to

demonstrate evidence was intentionally destroyed to deprive the

moving party from its use and/ or to its access. See Cushenberry
v. Scott, 2020- 1271 ( La. App. lst Cir. 12/ 30/ 20), 2020 WL 7828810
unpublished); see also Landis Const. Co., L. L. C. v. State, 2015-

1167 ( La. lst Cir. 2/ 29/ 16), 199 So. 3d 1, 2. Plaintiff did
App.
Evidence
not introduce any evidence at the hearing on her motion.
not and officially offered and introduced cannot be
properly
considered, even if it is physically placed in the record.

Moreover, as recognized in the jurisprudence, documents attached

to memoranda do not constitute evidence and cannot be considered
as such on appeal. Regions Bank v. Eymard, 2021- 0926 ( La. App.
lst Cir. 5/ 23/ 22), 342 So. 3d 908, 916, writ denied, 2022- 00977
La. 10/ 18/ 22), 348 So. 3d 731. Plaintiff did not carry her burden
of proof and therefore the district court' s ruling granting
Plaintiff' s motion was an abuse of its discretion. Accordingly,
Plaintiff' s " Motion for Spoliation of Evidence" is denied.

MRT
WRC

HG
TPS

Hester, J., dissents and would deny the writ.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY CLERK OF CO
FOR THE COURT