Concerning Her Motion for Spoliation Sanctions and Her Motion for a Hearing Ms. Toomer also objects to Magistrate Judge Harvey’s recommendation that this Court deny her motion for spoliation sanctions against the defendant and deny her motion for a hearing on her motion for spoliation sanctions. See Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 99 at 36-41. This objection is meritless and thus overruled. First, the primary piece of evidence that is the subject of Ms. Toomer’s motion for spoliation sanctions — the action figure— was found by defendant during the course of this litigation. See Notice, ECF No. 90. Because that evidence has been located and presented to Ms. Toomer for inspection, spoliation sanctions are unwarranted. See McGuire v. Acufex Microsurgical, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 149, 156-57 (D. Mass. 1997) (<HOLDING>). And because it is clear that the recently
holding that where the employment contract was at will there simply can be no certainty regarding whether the plaintiff would have remained employed long enough for the benefit the plaintiff claims he lost to have accrued holding although there was some evidence plaintiff subjectively believed conduct he reported violated the law there was legally insufficient evidence this belief was reasonable holding that there was no prejudice to a plaintiff and thus no basis for sanctions when evidence believed to be lost was found and promptly turned over to the plaintiff holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs holding that there is no basis in law to submit the issue of plaintiffs negligence to the jury when there was no evidence that plaintiff incited the dog or voluntarily or unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk