Portland, Oregon, partners George S. Pitcher and Dmitriy S. Golosinskiy prevailed on a motion to dismiss on behalf of a major U.S. truck manufacturer due to plaintiffs’ spoliation of evidence. The plaintiffs, operating a client-manufactured truck owned by their employer, were hospitalized after rear-ending a stopped tractor-trailer. After the collision, they emailed their employer, stating they had retained a lawyer, demanding preservation of the vehicle, and threatening to seek spoliation sanctions if it was lost or destroyed. The plaintiffs’ experts inspected the vehicle and identified components to be preserved. The employer sold the truck, which our client did not have an opportunity to inspect. The court found “culpability” on behalf of plaintiffs for their failure to notify our client and provide it with an opportunity to inspect the truck. The court acknowledged that a duty to preserve evidence applied even though the truck was not “directly” within plaintiff’s custody or control. After considering all the factors, including less drastic sanctions, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon agreed with George and Dmitriy that dismissal was warranted, given the prejudice to our client and its inability to inspect the truck that plaintiffs claimed was defective.