Defendant appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant was taken into custody under a suspicion of driving under the influence. At the police station, Defendant agreed to take a chemical test, but initially failed to supply enough air into the breathalyzer. The officer gave Defendant a second opportunity to give a sufficient breath sample, but Defendant refused to take the test unless the officer informed him of when the breathalyzer was last calibrated. The test was then terminated, and Defendant was charged with the aforementioned violation. Defendant argued that a negative inference should have been drawn against the State because the video surveillance provided to Defendant lacked audio and failed to depict the refusal. Rule 11(e) of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules provides that a discovery “request shall be made only within fourteen (14) days after the first appearance or at such reasonable later time as the court may permit.” Here, Defendant’s discovery request was almost two months past the deadline, and Defendant failed to present any evidence to justify the delay. Furthermore, Defendant asserted that the State failed to preserve video evidence of the refusal. “Speculative assertions as to the existence of documents do not suffice to sustain a motion for spoliation of evidence.” See Tri-County Motors, Inc. v. Am. Suzuki’s Motor Corp., 494 F. Supp. 2d 161, 177 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Defendant’s conclusion that the video was improperly withheld or destroyed was merely an assertion that was not supported by “even a scintilla of evidence that another video exist[ed].” As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s decision to not draw a negative inference against the State was not affected by error of law. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial judge.