Bilesky v. ShopkoAnnotate this Case
Plaintiff fell at a Shopko store and was injured. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that Shopko failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. During the discovery process, Plaintiff requested recorded video footage taken on the day of her fall. Shopko’s attorney replied that the footage had been accidentally recorded over. Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions based on Shopko’s spoliation of the video footage and included in her brief a list of facts she believed the video would have shown. In its response brief, Shopko pointed out that it agreed with most of Plaintiff’s contentions about what the video would have shown and then noted that it disagreed with Plaintiff’s other contentions about what the video showed. During trial, Plaintiff requested that the statements in Shopko’s response brief be read to the jury. The district court denied the request, concluding that the statements were not judicial admissions. Later in the trial, the district court allowed Shopko to present evidence contradicting the admissions. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it determined the circumstances did not warrant holding Shopko’s statements to be judicial admissions.