Cited by

It also says, based on Phoenician’s request, it will preserve evidence “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to be requested during discovery and/or is the subject of a pending discovery request.” (citation omitted).

Souza v. Fred Carries Conts., Inc., –51 (App. 1997).

“[L]itigants have a duty to preserve evidence which they know, or reasonably should know, is relevant in the action, is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to be requested during discovery and/or is the subject of a pending discovery request.” McMurtry, 231 Ariz. at 260, ¶ 51 (quoting Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., ).

Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., (citation omitted).

was therefore more than speculation.4 ¶21 Moreover, “litigants have a duty to preserve evidence which they know, or reasonably should know, ‘is relevant in the action, is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to be requested during discovery and/or is the subject of a pending discovery request.’” Souza v. Fred Carries Conts., Inc., (quoting Turner v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., 142 F.R.D.

Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 25 (App. 2000) (noting “once a plaintiff proves that the defendants’ conduct contributed to the plaintiff’s damages, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants”); Souza v. Fred Carries Conts., Inc., (noting a proximate cause need contribute only slightly to the injury).

Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 12 (App. 1999) (internal citation omitted); see also Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., (recognizing that no “bright line” rule exists for when dismissal is warranted in cases of spoliation of evidence, and “sanctions therefor should be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant factors” (citation omitted)).

Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc.

Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc.

See Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., (“Rule 37(a) and (b) .

3 MARTIN v. ROYAL SIGN Decision of the Court appropriate “if reasonable inferences concerning material facts could be resolved in favor of either party.” Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., (citation omitted).

Arizona does, however, recognize that “litigants have a duty to preserve evidence which they know, or reasonably should know, is relevant in the action, is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to be requested during discovery and/or is the subject of a pending discovery request.” Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., , (internal quotations and citations omitted).

See Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., , (citing GNLV Corp. v. Serv.

Co., , 371 n. 6, ¶¶ 42-43, , 156 n. 6 (App. 1999) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend to add a claim for first-party spoliation; Arizona has not recognized such a claim and there was no evidence the defendant acted in bad faith); Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., , 249 n. 1, , 5 n. 1 (App.1997) (noting that “Arizona does not recognize a separate tort of spoliation of evidence”).

¶ 19 “[E]xpert opinion evidence based on sheer speculation is not competent.” , ¶29 , Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc.

The Paulsens’ reliance on Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., , is unhelpful.

¶ 36 Both parties cite Souza v. Fred Car-nes Contracts, Inc., , as a civil case in which evidence was lost before trial.

See 6 Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., P.2d 3 (App. 1997).

See id.; Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., -55 , -11 (1997); cf. GM Dev.

Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., , 249 n. 1, , 5 n. 1 (App.1997).