Bollinger 328092 v. NaphCare Incorporated
2:23-cv-02008
| D. Ariz. | Mar 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Johnny Ray Bollinger, an inmate at Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a § 1983 civil rights lawsuit alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to deficient medical care.
- Bollinger requested all medical records from his intake via prison internal administrative process, not through formal discovery.
- After receiving the records, Bollinger moved for spoliation sanctions, alleging that many records were deleted, altered, or falsified.
- Magistrate Judge Morrissey denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence that defendants failed to preserve or altered any records.
- Bollinger objected to that ruling, arguing that the Magistrate had not properly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).
- The District Court reviewed the objection to determine if Judge Morrissey’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 37(e) sanctions are warranted for alleged spoliation of electronic records | Records were deleted, altered, or falsified; motion not adequately considered under Rule 37(e) | Plaintiff has not shared specific documents, nor requested records from Defendants, nor provided opportunity to resolve the dispute; no evidence of spoliation | No clear showing of spoliation or intent; motion for sanctions denied |
| Whether the magistrate judge erred by not analyzing prejudice or intent under Rule 37(e) | Magistrate did not evaluate prejudice or intent to deprive | Rule 37(e) only applies if evidence is actually lost; none shown | No loss of evidence demonstrated; threshold not met |
| Whether Plaintiff carried the burden of proof for spoliation sanctions | Plaintiff claims to have referenced tampered documents without specifying how they were altered | No specific evidence provided; Plaintiff failed to provide details or allow comparison | Plaintiff did not meet burden; no spoliation proven |
| Consideration of untimely defense filing | Defendants filed response one day late; should not be considered | Opposes disregard of late filing | Accepting late filing not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing magistrate judge's order on nondispositive matters)
- Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) (clearly erroneous review standard for factual findings)