Kenneth Adkins v. Basil Wolever
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Adkins, a Michigan prisoner, sues corrections officer Wolever under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged cell assault.
- Surveillance video and color photographs related to the incident were lost or not produced; black-and-white photos were supplied.
- The district court initially denied an adverse inference instruction under Michigan spoliation standards; panel affirmed; en banc held federal law governs spoliation sanctions in federal courts.
- On remand, evidentiary hearing showed retention policies: videos kept for three years unless litigation pending, memory limited to ten days, and access controlled by a litigation coordinator.
- Witnesses testified Wolever had no ordinary access to the video and could not download or view it; the disk was likely misplaced during staff transition.
- The district court again denied sanctions; Adkins appealed, arguing Wolever’s culpability and the need for an adverse inference; the Sixth Circuit affirmed denial, applying a case-by-case Beaven test analysis and deferring to district court discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal law governs spoliation sanctions. | Adkins argues federal law applies to spoliation. | Wolever contends state law governs. | Federal law governs spoliation sanctions. |
| Whether the spoliation evidence supports an adverse inference. | Adkins contends Wolever’s failure to preserve warrants an inference. | Wolever had no control over the evidence; no culpability. | No adverse inference required; Beaven factors not satisfied. |
| Whether Wolever had culpability for the loss of the video. | Wolever’s duty to preserve and foreseeability justify sanctions. | No control; reliance on prison retention policies was reasonable. | District court did not err in finding no culpability. |
| Whether district court abused its discretion by not imposing any spoliation sanction. | Adkins seeks sanctions to deter and remedy loss. | Discretionary, fact-intensive assessment; no clear error. | No abuse of discretion; sanctions not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaven v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010) (spoliation sanction framework; three Beaven factors)
- Adkins II, 554 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2009) (federal law governs spoliation; en banc decision)
- Adkins I, 520 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2008) (initial affirmance of denial under state law)
- Bearden v. Beasley, not applicable () (placeholder not used)
- Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) (adverse inference standards for spoliation)
- King v. American Power Conversion Corp., 181 F. App’x 373 (4th Cir. 2006) (adverse inference in surveillance-video spoliation)
- Jain v. Memphis S. Co. Airport Auth., 2010 WL 711328 (W.D. Tenn. 2010) (district court spoliation responses to lost evidence)
- Erie Ins. Exch. v. Davenport Insulation, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 2d 701 (D. Md. 2009) (modern spoliation considerations (cited in discussion))