Spoliation Claim Filed as a Tort Count, Instead of Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e), Failed in MD

In Schmitz v. Verdad Asset Management, Inc., 2025 WL 2306291 (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2025)(Xinis, J.), Count V of plaintiff’s complaint alleged spoliation of a website. It failed, and defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted.

The parties entered into a joint venture to launch a hedge fund.  After ballooning to $50 million in investment commitments, and after many alterations, the arrangement “went south.”  Schmitz filed suit.  Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

The Court addressed each of the first four counts, holding that they failed to state a claim.  Turning to Count V, claiming spoliation, the Court wrote:

Schmitz lastly complains that since he filed this lawsuit, “Verdad intentionally altered the content of its webpage resources,” to omit Schmitz as the author for several corporate related publications…. Schmitz theorizes that Verdad removed his name to “destroy evidence” related to Schmitz’ added value in promoting Verdad and, in turn, enriching Defendants’ bottom line…. This “spoliation,” says Schmitz, entitles him to “punitive damages.” [Emphasis added].

The Court dismissed the count, citing decades of binding authorities:

No cause of action exists for “spoliation.” Jarvis v. Staples, Inc., No. CIV. PJM 10-244, 2010 WL 4942010, at *45 (D. Md. Nov. 30, 2010), aff’d, 426 F. App’x 193 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[Plaintiff’s] claim for ‘obstruction of justice and spoliation of videotape evidence’ fails as a matter of law, since neither the Fourth Circuit nor the State of Maryland recognizes this as an independent cause of action.”); Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he acts of spoliation do not themselves give rise in civil cases to substantive claims or defenses.”); Goin v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 890 A.2d 894, 898 (Md. 2006) (declining to hold that the doctrine of spoliation gives rise to an independent cause of action). Schmitz admits as much because he has since withdrawn the claim…. Thus, the “spoliation” count is dismissed. [Emphasis added].

While I have no way to know whether a Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e) motion would have prevailed, because there is insufficient information to make that analysis, plaintiff did not present the spoliation of ESI argument under the Rule that governs ESI spoliation issues.