Here's an analysis of the Copper Creek Distributors, Inc. v. Ron Valk d/b/a Platinum Construction case based on the Court of Appeals memorandum opinion. You can read the full text of the opinion by clicking here. [THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT ON THIS CASE ON OCTOBER 8, 2025 SO STAY TUNED].
This case involves a commercial dispute where Platinum Construction accused Copper Creek Distributors, Inc. (CCDI) and Jose Doniceth Escoffie of theft, tortious interference with contracts, and unjust enrichment, alleging Escoffie was the alter ego of CCDI. The jury initially found in favor of Platinum, but the court of appeals reversed and remanded due to errors related to a spoliation instruction given to the jury.
Key points:
-
Background: Platinum Construction used Copper Creek Fine Cabinetry as a vendor for cabinetry and countertops. The vendor was linked to Triplett, who later incorporated CCDI with Escoffie and Briggs as directors. Triplett operated CCDI and diverted labor from Platinum's projects to his own residential projects, leading to allegations of theft and interference.
-
Spoliation Instruction: The trial court instructed the jury that CCDI destroyed or failed to preserve evidence, including accounting records and emails, which could be unfavorable to CCDI. This is a serious sanction that shifts focus to misconduct during litigation rather than the merits of the case.
-
Appeal Focus: The appellants challenged the spoliation instruction, arguing it was an abuse of discretion. The appellate court agreed, finding:
-
There was insufficient evidence that CCDI intentionally or negligently destroyed QuickBooks accounting records. Escoffie's testimony showed some uncertainty but no clear intentional spoliation.
-
The court found enough evidence that emails associated with the domain coppercreekcabinetry.net were lost or deleted, potentially due to negligence or intentional action by Triplett, but not conclusively by Escoffie.
-
The trial court did not consider lesser sanctions before giving the spoliation instruction, which is required except in exceptional cases.
-
-
Impact of the Instruction: The appellate court noted that the spoliation instruction likely influenced the jury improperly by focusing on alleged misconduct instead of the substantive issues. This was compounded by the plaintiff's repeated references to the missing evidence during trial, including opening and closing arguments.
-
Outcome: The appellate court reversed the judgment against CCDI and Escoffie and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of allowing full development and presentation of evidence without prejudicial instructions about spoliation unless clearly justified.
In essence, the court found that while there was some basis to suspect loss of evidence, the trial court overstepped in issuing a harsh spoliation instruction without proper procedural safeguards and consideration of lesser sanctions. This error was significant enough to warrant a retrial to ensure fairness.
The Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries, severe burns, commercial plane crashes and commercial trucking crashes nationwide, and especially in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. James E. Girards is a private pilot licensed to fly single- and multi-engine aircraft in both visual and instrument conditions. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.