-
Motion For Spoliation Sanctions for Deletion of Surveillance Video Denied
In OLIVER v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 22-CV-149 (E.D. Wisconsin, May 8, 2023), before the Court, among others, was Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions based on Amazon’s alleged destruction of surveillance video that Plaintiff contended was vital to her case. Plaintiff alleged that while she was employed at Amazon
-
Motion for Sanctions Denied After Finding Defendants Could Not Have Reasonably Foreseen Litigation
In LAWRENCE O. ANSLEY v. SECRETARY JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-528 (Jan. 5, 2023, M.D. PA), before the Court was Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on Defendants’ failure to preserve video footage. On March 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed his original complaint and alleged that Defendants conspired
-
Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanction Denied After Finding Defendants Had No Duty to Preserve
In CANADY v. BOSTIC, ET AL., No. 7:17cv00464 (W.D. Virginia, Feb. 23, 2022), before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanction arising from Defendants’ alleged failure to preserve certain clips of video footage. Plaintiff contended that on June 25, 2015, in the B-2 pod housing area at Keen Mountain
-
Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling Regarding Insufficient Video Footage Denied
In BIRREN v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., No. 20-cv-22783-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2022), before the Court were Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order on CCTV spoliation, and Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order. On July 7, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated a maritime personal injury action against Defendant. In
-
Cruise Line’s Alleged Failure To Preserve Video Was No Basis For Spoliation Sanctions
In Reed v Royal Caribbean Cruises, No. 1:2019cv24668 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2020), Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions on the grounds that Defendant failed to preserve videos of an alleged incident during a cruise. Plaintiff was a passenger on a cruise operated by Defendant. According to the complaint, during a
-
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,
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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