Video Surveillance

ilsteam
September 13, 2019

Failure To Preserve Police Dash Cam Video Results in Sanctions

In Woods v. Scissons, No. CV-17-08038-PCT-GMS (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2019), an Arizona Chief District judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of video footage of an arrest involving Plaintiff and Defendant, a police officer with the Prescott Police Department. In this case, the Court ruled that non-party

ilsteam
July 10, 2019

Motion For Sanction Denied Where No Prejudiced Shown

In Harvery v. Hall, et al., Civil Action No. 7:17-cv-00113 (W.D. Va April 22, 2019), the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motions for Sanctions for Spoliation on the grounds that, despite a finding of gross negligence on the part of Defendants, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice from the loss of the ESI. This prison case stems

ilsteam
February 22, 2019

No Spoliation Where Defendant Unintentionally Loses Key Surveillance Video Footage

In Stovall v Brykan Legends, LLC, No. 17-2412-JWL (D. Kan. Feb. 7, 2019), an employment discrimination case, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on Defendant’s alleged spoliation of surveillance video footage, stating that “[P]laintiff has failed to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2).” The case stems from a 2016 incident

ilsteam
June 27, 2018

Court Grants Partially Grants Spoliation Sanctions for Destroyed Video Footage

In Mizzoni v. Allison (Case No. 3-15-cv-00313-MMD-VPC.) (United States District Court, D. Nevada. May 14, 2018) the United States District Court for the District of Nevada decided on the Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions against the Defendant. Joseph Mizzoni, the Plaintiff, is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. Multiple Nevada

ilsteam
March 7, 2018

In Sanctions Motion Based Upon Spoliation Claim, Plaintiff Claims Defendant Acted with Intent to Deprive Him of ESI

In Hernandez v. Tulare Correctional Center, et al., No. 1:16-cv-00413-EPG, (Dist. Court California, 2018), the Court was called upon to determine a request for sanctions based upon a spoliation claim. Albert Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on April 21, 2015, he was pre-trial detainee at Tulare County Correctional Center (“Defendant”). Plaintiff was subjected to a search

ilsteam
March 5, 2018

No Spoliation Sanctions Where Moving Party Offered No Proof of Intent

In Wooden v. Barringer, et al., No. 3:16-cv-446-MCR-GRJ, (N.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2017), Gregory Wooden (“Plaintiff”) filed a grievance over excessive force against Officer Clyde Barringer (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to litigate on April 12, 2016. Defendants produced three video recordings. Plaintiff claimed spoliation, saying the videos had been altered in such

ilsteam
January 8, 2018

Court Refuses to Enter Default Judgment Where Defendant Negligently Destroyed Video of Slip and Fall

In Patrick v. Tractor Supply, Co., No. 16-10755, (E.D. La., 2017), Plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case moves for default judgment due to Defendant’s spoliation of evidence. On May 27, 2016, following a slip-and-fall incident that occurred on November 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that while visiting Defendant’s store she tripped and fell

ilsteam
October 20, 2017

Court Allows Evidentiary Sanction After Grocery Store Inadvertently Destroys Slip and Fall Evidence

In Brown v. Albertsons, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-01991-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. May 10, 2017), the Court examines Plaintiff’s claims of intentional spoliation of evidence after a tort action. Plaintiff alleges she slipped and fell at an Albertson’s Store in Las Vegas on February 1, 2016. After over a year of discovery activity, Plaintiff moved for an order

ilsteam
July 29, 2017

Defendant Seeking Evidentiary Sanctions for Discovery Disputes

In Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc., Case No. 14-cv-05180-EMC(KAW), N.D. Cal. July 11, 2017, the court concluded that the parties were “incapable of meeting and conferring” and instead decided a number of discovery disputes for the parties. One such dispute concerned electronic files that Plaintiff made available to Defendants via Dropbox. Plaintiff’s due date