209 F. Supp. 3d 1236
D.N.M.2016Background
- Collision on Feb. 10, 2013 between APD Sgt. Adam Casaus’s vehicle and Lindsay Browder; dispute over traffic-light timing and whether Casaus was following another vehicle.
- RTCC (city-operated Real Time Crime Center) had traffic-camera footage from three nearby intersections; RTCC staff and BCSO deputies viewed footage within 24 hours after the accident and were directed by APD Chief Schultz to preserve it.
- Video pulled from RTCC servers was date-stamped inconsistently; Sergeant Felipe Garcia inadvertently saved footage from Feb. 9 for two cameras and Feb. 10 for a third; original Feb. 10 footage has since been lost because RTCC servers retain video only 24–72 hours.
- Custody of burned CDs is murky: deputies viewed and/or took CDs, copies were uploaded by BCSO, but the CDs with the correct Feb. 10 footage cannot be located and chain-of-custody records are lacking.
- Plaintiffs moved for sanctions for spoliation; Court found the City had a duty to preserve, that loss resulted from negligence and inadequate retention practices, and that Plaintiffs suffered varying degrees of prejudice from the lost footage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City had duty to preserve RTCC video | City knew litigation was foreseeable after officer-involved fatal crash and Chief Schultz directed preservation | BCSO led the investigation; City claims it did not independently obtain or fail to preserve footage | Court: Duty attached; City (controlling RTCC) had obligation to preserve despite BCSO’s role |
| Whether evidence was spoliated (culpability) | City negligently lost footage due to poor procedures and employee error; systemic retention failures | Loss was human error and partly attributable to BCSO/novel RTCC system; not intentional | Court: Loss was negligent and reflected inadequate information-management and retention practices (culpable beyond trivial fault) |
| Prejudice to Plaintiffs from lost footage | Footage would help time traffic lights and confirm eyewitness (Villanueva) that Casaus was not following that Cadillac | Deputies viewed Feb.10 footage and found nothing relevant beyond Browder’s vehicle; camera angles limited utility | Court: Some prejudice shown—minimal as to Eagle Ranch/Paseo (camera view limited); real prejudice as to Coors/La Orilla footage that could corroborate eyewitness testimony |
| Appropriate sanctions/remedy | Seek adverse inference and fees/costs | Oppose adverse inference absent bad faith; shift blame to BCSO | Court: Granted limited sanctions—no adverse-inference instruction for jury as default (bad-faith not shown), but Plaintiffs may inform jury evidence existed and was lost and may get an instruction permitting inference if defendants attack Deputy Armijo’s testimony; City must pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees for motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (duty to preserve once litigation is reasonably anticipated and need for litigation hold)
- Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001) (preservation obligations when evidence may be relevant)
- Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) (spoliation and its legal consequences)
- Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2009) (duty to preserve arises when litigation is imminent; bad-faith requirement for adverse inference)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2007) (framework for spoliation sanctions)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (court’s inherent power to sanction to manage proceedings)
- Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007) (sanctions to address destruction of electronic media)
- U.S. ex rel. Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 488 (N.D. Okla. 2000) (types of sanctions for spoliation and remedial purposes)