In a case arising out of damage from a lightning strike, the defendant preserved a transformer which had been damaged by the lightning, but did not preserve the surge arrester, (which, according to a photograph taken shortly after the incident, sustained no apparent damage). An Entergy employee for many years testified that the arrester was probably removed from the transformer and discarded in accordance with standard operating procedures shortly after the apparatus was removed from the scene. The court found no evidence that Entergy intentionally destroyed the arrester to deprive plaintiffs of its use, noting that, “at the time the arrester was discarded, no litigation was pending, and Entergy officials probably were not aware of a potential claim.” The trial court further concluded that plaintiffs must bear some responsibility for the loss of the arrester because their own investigator visited the scene prior to Entergy’s knowledge of the fire loss claim and took no steps to preserve the arrester; moreover, plaintiff’s counsel made no formal request that Entergy preserve the arrester, although it made a request for the transformer. Hence, the trial court’s rejection of a claim of spoliation was affirmed. Franks v. Entergy Corp., No. 40,486 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1130.