Guarisco v. Boh Bros. Construction Co.: How Altered Evidence Triggers Spoliation Sanctions

Case Summary

Guarisco v. Boh Bros. Construction Co. is a personal injury case from the Eastern District of Louisiana in which a party produced a digitally altered photograph during discovery. The alteration was not an obvious fabrication; it was a subtle modification of a real photograph. Expert analysis revealed the manipulation, and the court imposed sanctions for evidence tampering.

The case is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that digital evidence alteration is detectable; expert forensic analysis can identify modifications that are invisible to the naked eye. Second, it illustrates that sanctions apply regardless of the degree of alteration. Any modification to evidence, once discovered, triggers the spoliation framework.

For attorneys practicing in the Eastern District of Louisiana, a jurisdiction with heavy maritime, construction, and personal injury dockets, Guarisco is directly applicable precedent.

What Happened

The underlying case involved a personal injury claim against Boh Bros. Construction Co., a prominent contractor operating in the Gulf Coast region. During discovery, a photograph was produced that was relevant to the disputed facts.

The opposing party retained a digital forensics expert to analyze the photograph. The expert identified telltale signs of digital manipulation: inconsistencies in lighting, pixel-level anomalies at the edges of altered regions, and metadata discrepancies indicating the image had been processed after its original creation date.

When confronted with the expert's findings, the producing party could not satisfactorily explain the discrepancies. The court found that the photograph had been altered and imposed sanctions.

What the Court Held

The court's ruling in Guarisco established a principle that applies broadly to photographic and digital evidence: producing altered evidence in discovery constitutes spoliation, regardless of whether the alteration was intended to deceive or was the result of negligent handling.

The court emphasized that the integrity of evidence is not a matter of degree. An altered photograph is not a slightly altered photograph; it is altered evidence, full stop. Once alteration is established, the court applies the same analytical framework as in any other spoliation case: what was the party's culpability, and what remedy is appropriate to cure the prejudice?

The sanctions imposed included cost awards and evidentiary limitations. The case also generated significant attorney time and expense in defending against the spoliation motion, a cost that dwarfed any benefit the alteration could have provided.

The Lesson

Guarisco teaches that digital evidence integrity cannot be assumed; it must be proven. In the era of widely available image editing software, courts and opposing counsel are increasingly sophisticated about the possibility that digital evidence has been altered. The burden of proving authenticity rests with the proponent.

More importantly, the case demonstrates that even subtle alterations will be discovered. The forensic tools available to expert witnesses can detect pixel-level changes, metadata inconsistencies, and compression artifacts that indicate post-creation modification. An attorney who produces altered evidence should not assume that the alteration is invisible; it may simply be that the opposing party has not yet retained the right expert.

The most instructive aspect of Guarisco is what a proper evidence management workflow would have prevented. If a SHA-256 hash had been computed at the time the photograph was originally received or collected, any subsequent modification would have been immediately detectable, not through expert analysis, but through a simple hash comparison. The hash would have either confirmed the photograph's integrity or identified the alteration at the moment it occurred.

How to Prevent This

Hash verification is the definitive solution to evidence alteration disputes. A SHA-256 hash computed at the time of collection is a mathematical fingerprint of the file at that moment. No modification, however subtle, can survive a hash comparison without detection.

Hash at collection, not at production. The hash must be computed when the evidence first comes into your possession. Hashing a file after it has been processed or stored only proves the file's integrity from that point forward. The critical moment is receipt.

Verify before production. Before producing any digital evidence in discovery, verify that the current hash matches the collection hash. If they match, the file is mathematically identical to what was received. If they don't match, the discrepancy must be investigated and explained before production.

Document the verification. The hash comparison should be documented in the chain of custody record and, if appropriate, in an FRE 902(13) certification. This shifts the burden of proving alteration to the opposing party, and under SHA-256, that burden is essentially impossible to meet if the hashes match.

Store originals in immutable systems. Once evidence is uploaded to a system that prevents modification, the original cannot be altered. Any copy that differs from the original can be identified immediately through hash comparison. This is the structural guarantee that protects against the scenario in Guarisco.