## Facts

- Kristopher Schon Bowyer, a minor, was born at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and allegedly suffered oxygen deprivation during birth, causing serious injury.
- Bowyer (through a guardian ad litem) sued Cedars-Sinai and others for medical malpractice.
- During discovery, Bowyer requested medical records; Cedars-Sinai could not locate certain records, including fetal monitoring strips from labor.
- Bowyer alleged Cedars-Sinai intentionally destroyed or suppressed those records to impair the malpractice case and added a cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence, along with a claim for punitive damages based on that theory.
- The trial court allowed an amended complaint to proceed on the spoliation theory; Cedars-Sinai sought writ relief to strike the spoliation claim.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether to recognize a tort claim for intentional destruction or suppression of evidence by a party when the spoliation is, or should be, discovered before the underlying litigation ends.

## Issues

1. Whether California recognizes a tort cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the underlying lawsuit when the spoliation is, or reasonably should be, discovered before the underlying case concludes.
2. Whether existing procedural and evidentiary remedies within the underlying action are adequate such that a separate tort is unnecessary and undesirable.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court declined to recognize a tort cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence in this setting.
- The court held that when alleged spoliation is committed by a party and is discovered or reasonably discoverable before the underlying litigation ends, the proper response is through non-tort remedies in the underlying case.
- The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant Cedars-Sinai’s motion to strike the intentional spoliation cause of action.

## Legal Principles

- California does not recognize a separate tort for intentional spoliation of evidence by a party when the misconduct is, or should be, discovered before the conclusion of the underlying litigation.
- Spoliation is condemned, but the preferred tools are existing non-tort remedies within the pending action, including:
  - Discovery sanctions and issue/evidence sanctions.
  - Evidentiary presumptions and adverse-inference instructions regarding missing evidence.
  - Punitive damages within the underlying action when otherwise legally available.
  - Contempt powers and professional discipline for litigation misconduct.
- A separate spoliation tort would impose substantial social costs by creating collateral, speculative “trial-within-a-trial” litigation over what missing evidence would have shown and whether it would have changed the result.
- Expanding tort liability for litigation-related misconduct risks endless follow-on suits, undermines finality, and conflicts with the policy of addressing such misconduct through procedural controls rather than new tort claims.
- The holding is limited to spoliation by a party that is discovered or reasonably discoverable before the underlying litigation ends; the court did not decide other settings (such as nonparty spoliation or postjudgment discovery).

## Conclusion

California law provides no stand-alone tort remedy for intentional spoliation of evidence by a party when the destruction or suppression is discovered, or should be discovered, while the underlying case is still pending; courts must address the harm through sanctions and evidentiary measures within the original litigation.


Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Ct., 18 Cal. 4th 1, 954 P.2d 511 (Cal. 1998)