Wal-Mart Stores East, LP v. Elida Maria Garcia Pineda (No. 3D23-0793
(a) Facts
The case, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP v. Elida Maria Garcia Pineda (No. 3D23-0793, Lower Tribunal No. 20-26469), involves an appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, presided over by Judge David C. Miller. The appellant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”), challenged a final judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Elida Maria Garcia Pineda, following a negligence lawsuit. On July 13, 2019, Pineda slipped and fell outside a restroom at a Walmart store in Hialeah. Four days later, her counsel sent Walmart a preservation letter specifying the date but not the time of the incident. Pineda initially reported the fall occurred at 10:40 PM, prompting Walmart to preserve surveillance footage from 9:40 PM to 11:40 PM. After subsequent clarification attempts, it emerged that the fall actually occurred at 11:45 PM. Walmart then preserved an additional five-minute segment (11:42 PM to 11:47 PM) capturing the fall, but a two-minute gap (11:40 PM to 11:42 PM) remained unaccounted for.
Procedurally, Pineda filed suit in 2020, and Walmart provided all available footage—two hours plus the extra five minutes—in response to her December 2020 request. The case proceeded to trial on March 7, 2023. At the close of Pineda’s case-in-chief, her counsel raised a spoliation claim for the first time, alleging Walmart intentionally withheld the missing two-minute segment. The trial court, likening the gap to the Watergate scandal, gave Walmart approximately 12 hours to respond before imposing an adverse inference jury instruction, suggesting the missing footage would have been unfavorable to Walmart. Walmart objected, citing lack of notice and evidence, but the court proceeded. The jury found for Pineda, and Walmart’s motion for a new trial was denied. On March 12, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
(b) Issues
Two primary issues were in dispute on appeal: (1) whether competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding of spoliation, justifying the adverse inference instruction; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Walmart the opportunity to present evidence rebutting the adverse inference before the jury.
(c) Holding
The Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion on both grounds. First, it ruled that no competent, substantial evidence supported the finding of spoliation, rendering the adverse inference instruction improper. Second, it held that denying Walmart the chance to present evidence contesting the inference was an independent abuse of discretion. Consequently, the court reversed the final judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
(d) Rationale
The appellate court’s decision rested on a meticulous application of Florida law governing spoliation and evidentiary sanctions. On the first issue, the court applied the three-part test from Pena v. Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC (304 So. 3d 1254, Fla. 3d DCA 2020): spoliation requires (1) evidence that once existed, (2) a duty to preserve it, and (3) its criticality to the opposing party’s case, with the duty arising from a contract, statute, or discovery request. Additionally, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(f), sanctions for lost electronically stored information require a failure to take reasonable preservation steps and intent to deprive the other party of its use. The court found no evidence that Walmart failed to take reasonable steps—having preserved footage based on Pineda’s initial 10:40 PM report and later providing additional footage—or acted in bad faith to delete the two-minute gap. Pineda’s delay in raising the issue until trial, coupled with her failure to demonstrate the missing footage’s relevance, undermined the trial court’s conclusion, which lacked a factual basis and relied on impermissible inference stacking (Leftwich v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 396 So. 3d 603, Fla. 5th DCA 2024)).
On the second issue, the court emphasized that an adverse inference instruction, per Florida Standard Civil Jury Instruction 301.11(a), does not shift the burden of proof (Pena, 304 So. 3d at 1257) and permits parties to argue against it (Jordan ex rel. Shealey v. Masters, 821 So. 2d 342, Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). By denying Walmart this opportunity, the trial court transformed a permissive inference into a de facto adverse ruling, effectively shifting the burden to Walmart without justification. Both errors constituted abuses of discretion under the Canakaris standard (382 So. 2d 1197, Fla. 1980), as no reasonable jurist would have adopted the trial court’s approach given the record.
(e) Comments
(d) Rationale
The appellate court’s mechanism for evaluating the trial judge’s spoliation ruling provides the basis for determining the correct instruction:
- Spoliation Threshold and Evidence Standard
The court applied the Pena test (Pena v. Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC, 304 So. 3d 1254, Fla. 3d DCA 2020)): spoliation requires (1) evidence that existed, (2) a duty to preserve, and (3) criticality to the case, with a duty stemming from a specific source (e.g., discovery request). Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(f), sanctions like an adverse inference require a failure to take reasonable preservation steps and intent to deprive. The court found no evidence Walmart intentionally destroyed the two-minute gap or failed its duty—Walmart preserved footage per Pineda’s 10:40 PM report and voluntarily provided more. Pineda’s delay in raising the issue and lack of proof of the gap’s relevance meant no spoliation occurred. Thus, no factual predicate supported any adverse inference instruction. - Available Jury Instructions
Florida offers two spoliation-related instructions:- 301.11(a): Used by the trial judge, it allows the jury to infer missing evidence was unfavorable if the party intentionally lost, destroyed, or altered it while in their control, and it was material. It requires a finding of bad faith (Skanska USA Civil Se. Inc. v. Bagelheads, Inc., 75 F.4th 1290, 11th Cir. 2023)).
- 301.11(b) (Valcin Instruction): Shifts the burden to the party who lost the evidence to prove it wouldn’t have been unfavorable, applicable when evidence is lost negligently (not necessarily intentionally) and critical, per Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596, Fla. 1987). The trial judge considered but rejected this, opting for 301.11(a).