Video Surveillance – Page 2

ilsteam
July 17, 2017

County Sanctioned in Civil Rights Case for Failing to Preserve Video of Jailhouse Beatings

In Storey v. Effingham County et. al., Case No. 15-149 (S.D. Ga., June 16, 2017), Plaintiff is the executor for the estate of Kenneth Cartee, who died from injuries he sustained during an arrest by Effingham County police. According to the complaint, police pressed down on Cartee’s shoulder and neck to subdue him during an

admin
June 7, 2017

Preclusion Motion Denied Where No Bad Faith in Deletion Of Smartphone Original Audio, and Party Waited Too Long To Seek Original

In Kennedy v. Supreme Forest Products, Inc., Case No. 14-01851 (D. Conn., May 22, 2017), Plaintiff, a truck driver, sued Defendants, his employers, for violation the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), based upon allegations that Defendants terminated his employment because he refused to drive trucks that were loaded over the federal weight limit. During his

admin
June 2, 2017

Summary Judgment Granted Despite Destruction of Video Evidence

In Taylor v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., d/b/a Rite-Aid, Case No. 16-00474 (D. Oregon, May 12, 2017), Plaintiff sued Defendant after she slipped and fell in a large puddle while shopping in the Defendant drugstore. She testified that after she fell, someone placed cones around the spill and wet floor signs. Various other remedial measures allegedly

admin
January 23, 2017

NYPD Motion for Sanctions Denied When No Prejudice Shown by Lost Cell Phone Footage

In Simon et. al. v. City of New York et. al., Case No. 14-8391 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2017), Plaintiffs sued the City of New York as well as several NYPD police officers for false arrest and violations of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. After discovery, Defendants filed a Motion for

admin
December 21, 2016

False Arrest Plaintiff Awarded Attorneys’ Fees and Adverse Inference for Police Spoliation of Video Evidence

In Cahill v. Dart et. al., Case No. 13-361 (N.D. Ill., December 2, 2016), Plaintiff sued Defendants (police officers with the Cook County Sheriff’s Office) for claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and violations of the Fourth Amendment following his arrest for driving on a suspended license. Defendants alleged that Plaintiff dropped a package of

admin
October 17, 2016

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Spoliation Motion After Missing Video is Found

In Palmer v. Allen, et. al., Case No. 14-12247 (E.D. Mich., Sept. 28, 2016), Plaintiff sued the police department for the city of Ecorse, Michigan, as well as police officers Allen and Trevino, after an incident during a traffic stop. Plaintiff was the passenger in a vehicle that was pulled over for driving without headlights,

admin
March 13, 2015

Court Finds No Spoliation of Security Video Under Third Circuit’s Bad Faith Standard

In Harrell v. Pathmark et al., Civil Action No. 14-5260 (E.D.Penn. Feb. 26, 2015), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sua sponte considered whether to order an adverse inverse instruction due to Defendant’s possible spoliation of video evidence. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging negligence related to a slip and fall accident that occurred in Defendant’s store. Defendant moved for

admin
February 6, 2015

No Spoliation After Defendants Inadvertently Destroy Video Surveillance

In Wardner v. American Airlines, et al., Case No. 14-22011-CIV (S.D.Fl. Jan. 12, 2015), a Florida district court considered whether to enter an adverse inference instruction against Defendants’ due to alleged spoliation of video surveillance. Plaintiff, who was arrested following alleged disruptive behavior at the Miami International Airport, filed suit against the airline, Miami-Dade County, and others for malicious prosecution,

admin
December 17, 2014

Court Rejects Defendant’s Attempt to Avoid Production Because of a Software Licensing Issue

In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 3:14-CV-16-PRL-CCS (E.D. Tenn. December 1, 2014), a railroad conductor alleged he suffered injury after trying to remove a fallen tree from a train track. Plaintiff’s eDiscovery requests requested that Defendant produce the video recording from a camera mounted on front of the train. Plaintiff alleged it needed the video recording to demonstrate the tree’s position