In Valk v. Copper Creek Distribs., Inc., No. 24-0516 (Tex. Apr. 17, 2026), the Supreme Court of Texas ruled: “The court of appeals erred in concluding that a spoliation instruction was reversible error warranting a new trial without first considering appellate points that, if sustained, would have resulted in rendition. And its analysis regarding the harm caused by the spoliation instruction fell short because it did not assess the record as a whole. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to that court.”

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case involving a dispute arose related to an alleged labor-theft scheme involving Plaintiff’s business (Platinum) and several individuals who later formed Defendant Copper Creek Distributors, a key issue emerged during discovery. Copper Creek no longer had access to certain emails and QuickBooks records, which Platinum claimed had been destroyed or allowed to lapse to conceal evidence. This led to a dispute over spoliation and whether the jury should be instructed to infer that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to Copper Creek.

At trial, the court included a spoliation instruction, telling the jury that Copper Creek “destroyed or failed to preserve evidence” and that the jury “may consider that this evidence would have been unfavorable” to the defendants. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Platinum, awarding $150,000 in damages.

On appeal by Defendants, the court of appeals focused exclusively on the propriety of the spoliation instruction. It concluded that the instruction was erroneous and harmful, and it remanded the case for a new trial. But it did so without addressing several other issues raised by Defendants.

The Texas Supreme Court found this approach fundamentally flawed. It emphasized a longstanding and mandatory rule: when multiple grounds for reversal are presented, appellate courts must first consider issues that would require rendition. As the Court explained, “when multiple grounds for reversal of a trial court’s judgment are presented, courts of appeals should ‘first address issues that would require rendition’ and thus should consider those issues before ordering a remand.”

This rule is not discretionary. The Court rejected the lower court’s view that it had “broad discretion” to remand the case without addressing dispositive issues. Instead, it reaffirmed that appellate courts must aim to resolve cases to “the greatest achievable degree of finality.” By skipping over potentially dispositive issues – such as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence or the admissibility of damages testimony – the court of appeals failed to follow this mandate.

The Court also underscored the significance of ordering a new trial, particularly after a jury verdict. It described such action as “especially grave,” noting that “[D]isregarding a jury’s verdict is an unusually serious act that imperils a constitutional value of immense importance—the authority of a jury.” This language reflects the Court’s concern not only with procedural correctness but also with preserving the integrity of jury determinations.

The court of appeals had attempted to justify its decision by suggesting that the erroneous spoliation instruction may have affected how Platinum presented its case: potentially leading it to offer less evidence. The Supreme Court of Texas rejected this reasoning as speculative and insufficient. It held that such a possibility “does not relieve the appellate court of its duty to first consider issues that may require rendition.”

Moreover, the Court found no evidence in the record that the spoliation instruction actually prevented Platinum from presenting its case fully. The record instead suggested that Platinum had ample opportunity to develop and present its evidence. The case had been pending for nearly five years, and Platinum had chosen not to present certain available evidence, including expert testimony and additional discovery avenues. The Court observed that “nothing in the record supports a conclusion that Platinum would have offered different or additional damages evidence but for the trial court’s decision” regarding the instruction. Because of this, the Court concluded that the remand ordered by the court of appeals effectively granted Platinum “an unjustified second bite at the apple—it did not serve the interest of justice.”

In addition to the procedural error, the Court criticized the court of appeals’ harm analysis as inadequate. Even assuming that the spoliation instruction was erroneous, the appellate court failed to evaluate harm in the context of the entire record. The Supreme Court emphasized that a proper harm analysis requires reviewing “the entire record of the case as a whole,” including the evidence, arguments, and overall strength of the case. By focusing narrowly on the instruction itself, the court of appeals did not meet this standard.

As a result, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled: “The court of appeals erred in concluding that a spoliation instruction was reversible error warranting a new trial without first considering appellate points that, if sustained, would have resulted in rendition” and reversed and remanded the case back to the court of appeals.

So, what do you think? Do you agree that court of appeals erred here? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.