Foust v. McFarland, 698 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
The defendants appealed an $11 million jury verdict in a personal injury lawsuit involving an automobile accident. Specifically, the defendants argued that the trial court erred by barring evidence relating to the plaintiff's intentional spoliation of electronic evidence. The defendants also contended the court should have granted a mistrial or dismissed the case with prejudice, instead of granting a spoliation adverse inference instruction. Upon examining the plaintiff's computer, the defendants' computer forensic expert had discovered evidence of child pornography, illegal downloads of intellectual property, and evidence that a software-wiping program was used in an attempt to permanently delete data from the computer hard drive. The trial court refused to admit the evidence on the grounds that it was more prejudicial than probative. The trial court further concluded an adverse inference instruction was an appropriate spoliation sanction in light of the circumstances. On appeal, the appellate court determined the trial court properly issued the adverse inference instruction and concluded that intentional spoliation did not create "a presumption that a dismissal with prejudice of the spoiling party's claims is the best and fairest sanction." The appellate court also found the spoliation evidence was appropriately excluded as "some of the information was character assassination and was more prejudicial than probative."