Sanctions for spoliation of evidence were not warranted as Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Defendant “knew or should have known that the destroyed evidence was relevant to pending, imminent or reasonably foreseeable litigation.”  Id. at *4.  Further, the Court in denying Plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference charge, noted “[i]n order for an adverse inference to arise from the destruction of evidence, the party having control over the evidence must have had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed.” (internal citations omitted).  Id. at *8.