Cannon v. City of Augusta/Richmond County Sheriff's Department, 1:24-cv-00035

Plaintiff Quincy J. Cannon, a former Richmond County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) deputy, alleges he was constructively discharged after internal and criminal investigations found he used excessive force on an arrestee in Nov. 2022.
After a grand jury declined to indict Cannon in May 2023, he filed a Title VII racial discrimination charge, alleging that similarly-situated Caucasian deputies were not disciplined for comparable conduct.
Cannon sought sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) for failure to preserve video of a use-of-force incident involving Deputy Parker, an alleged comparator, from Feb. 3, 2022 ("the Parker Incident").
RCSO’s security cameras automatically overwrite footage after 30 days per policy unless the video is specifically preserved.
The Parker Incident footage was overwritten in the normal course before Cannon’s termination or any foreseeable litigation regarding his termination or comparison claims.
No claims were pending and RCSO had no notice of Cannon’s intended use of the Parker Incident as evidence until after the footage's routine deletion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to Preserve Footage	RCSO should have preserved the footage as it was relevant comparator evidence.	Duty to preserve did not arise before the footage was deleted; deletion was per routine policy.	No duty to preserve existed before foreseeable litigation or claim.
Timing of Foreseeability	Plaintiff’s EEOC claim and open records request made the litigation reasonably foreseeable before deletion.	Litigation was not foreseeable when footage was deleted; no EEOC charge or notice of comparator relevance existed then.	Litigation not foreseeable at deletion; duty to preserve not triggered.
Prejudice from Lost Evidence	Loss of footage was highly prejudicial and essential to plaintiff’s prima facie case.	Footage was not crucial; events inside the cell (the key acts) were not captured; other discovery was possible.	Plaintiff failed to show crucial prejudice—other discovery available, and value of lost footage minimal.
Intentional Deletion	Footage was deliberately destroyed to undermine plaintiff’s case.	Deletion was in the normal, good-faith operation of routine policy and not intentional.	No evidence of intent to deprive; deletion was routine, not deliberate.

Ala. Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Boeing Co., 319 F.R.D. 730 (N.D. Ala. 2017) (spoliation duty arises only when litigation is pending or reasonably foreseeable)
Marshall v. Dentfirst, P.C., 313 F.R.D. 691 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (duty to preserve evidence arises, at earliest, when employer is notified of an EEOC charge)
Storey v. Effingham Cnty., 2017 WL 2623775 (S.D. Ga. 2017) (routine deletions don’t meet intent requirement for Rule 37(e) sanctions)