future litigation. Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 613 Pa. 80, 32 A.3d 687, 692 (2011). “When a party to a suit has been charged with spoliating evidence in that suit (sometimes called “first-party spoliation”), we have allowed trial courts to exercise their discretion to impose a range of sanctions against the spoliator.” Id. (citing Schroeder v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 551 Pa. 243, 710 A.2d 23, 27 (1998)) (footnotes omitted). This Court has stated: “When reviewing a court’s decision to grant or deny a spoliation sanction, we must determine whether the court abused its discretion.” Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Division, 781 A.2d 1263, 1269 (Pa.Super.2001) (citing Croydon Plastics Co. v. Lower Bucks Cooling & Heating, 698 A.2d 625, 629 (Pa.Super.1997) (<HOLDING>)). Such sanctions arise out of “the common
holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the district court holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the court holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not bedisturbed absent an abuse of discretion recognizing that the decision whether to sanction a party and if so the severity of such sanction is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court