Relation Back and Spoliation in a Warehouse Fire Case
On 12 January 2023, a fire destroyed a warehouse leased by Northgate Logistics LLC and damaged the adjacent Corbin Foods plant. Corbin's investigators traced the fire to a faulty forklift charger maintained by Northgate. On 10 January 2025-two days before the two-year limitation period expired-Corbin filed suit naming 'Northgate Logistics Inc.' as defendant. The lease, payroll, and insurance were all in the name of Northgate Logistics LLC, a separate legal entity with the same registered agent. The complaint was served on the registered agent on 14 January 2025; the agent forwarded it to Northgate's general counsel on 16 January. On 5 February 2025, Corbin moved to amend the complaint to substitute the LLC. Northgate opposes the amendment as time-barred. Separately, Corbin's CCTV system overwrote 45 days of footage on 28 February, despite a preservation letter from Northgate dated 20 January requesting the footage.
1. Should the court allow the amendment to substitute the LLC? Apply a relation-back analysis.
Read the worked answer
Rule. An amendment adding or substituting a party relates back if (1) the claim arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new party received notice of the action within the period for service; and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it.
Application. Same occurrence: yes-the warehouse fire. Notice: the complaint was served on the registered agent on 14 January, two days after the limitation period expired; the agent forwarded it on 16 January. If the same registered agent serves both entities, notice is strongly arguable. The LLC knew of the fire and the lease; its insurer and general counsel received the complaint promptly. The mistake is a classic identity mistake: Corbin intended to sue the warehouse operator, not a different company. Northgate will argue that the LLC is a separate entity and that notice came after the period. Corbin should show the agent's dual role, the shared insurance, and that the LLC was not prejudiced.
Conclusion. A court is likely to allow relation back, but it is not automatic. Corbin should also consider an alter-ego claim against the Inc. only if facts support it-not a safe fallback.
2. What sanctions, if any, are appropriate for the lost CCTV footage? What steps should Corbin have taken?
Read the worked answer
Duty. A duty to preserve arises when litigation is reasonably anticipated. Northgate's 20 January preservation letter made the duty explicit. Corbin's 45-day auto-overwrite deleted footage after the letter, so the failure is at least negligent.
Sanctions. Courts consider the degree of fault, prejudice, and whether a lesser sanction cures the harm. Because the footage may show the fire's origin and Corbin's own maintenance, loss is potentially prejudicial. Likely outcomes: an adverse-inference instruction, exclusion of Corbin's contrary evidence, monetary sanctions, or a forensic examination at Corbin's expense. Default judgment is reserved for bad faith and extreme prejudice; this record does not yet show intentional destruction. Northgate should demand a deposition on the retention system and a written protocol.
What Corbin should have done. Issue a litigation hold, suspend auto-deletion, preserve the DVR and original media, create a forensic image, document chain of custody, and log all deletions. Counsel should supervise, not IT alone.