“Slip and fall” personal injury cases frequently spawn work product and related issues. In Sabanski v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-844-WFJ-SPF, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196575 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2025), plaintiff sued a beauty salon after a fall. Several years later, she moved for a default judgment and sanctions after learning that the store apparently lost its videorecording of the incident.
Plaintiff lost her motion and suffered a trifecta of unfavorable results in her later reconsideration effort. First, the court ruled that because a reconsideration motion cannot raise a new issue, plaintiff had forfeited her chance to argue that defendant’s “duty to preserve the recording began on the day Plaintiff fell.” Id. at *7. Second, the court noted that “an injury in a store is insufficient to put a party on notice that litigation is reasonably foreseeable.” Id. at *8. Third, the court pointed to evidence that undercut plaintiff’s argument that the store should have immediately anticipated litigation — noting that “right after she fell, Plaintiff told the Store’s manager … that it was Plaintiff’s fault she fell,” and “[t]he next day, Plaintiff called the store to apologize.” Id. at *9.
Lawyers obviously must insist that their clients tell the truth at all times. Sometimes the truth, or even the client’s unfortunate phraseology, can hurt.
