Khatibi v. Bonura, 1:10-cv-01168

Background

In 1998 Kian Khatabi was arrested, tried, and convicted for a bar stabbing; convictions were later vacated after his brother confessed and the indictment was dismissed in 2008.
Khatabi sued the Village of Pleasantville, Pleasantville Police Department, and officers Bonura and Mazzei alleging constitutional and state-law claims arising from the investigation and prosecution.
Khatabi moved for spoliation sanctions (including default judgment) based on alleged loss/destruction of: Mazzei’s handwritten interview notes, victims’ clothing (some recovered then lost; some never recovered), a police-station videotape showing Khatabi the night of the incident (taped over), and certain audio police transmissions (taped over).
Magistrate Judge Davison denied sanctions in an Order dated Sept. 21, 2012; Khatabi objected under Rule 72 and filed amended, narrowed objections after changes in counsel.
The district court reviewed whether Judge Davison’s non-dispositive sanctions ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law and considered (1) existence of the notes, (2) duty to preserve, and (3) culpable state of mind/relevance/prejudice for the lost items.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of Mazzei’s handwritten interview notes	Mazzei took and later discarded a one-page Duffy statement and other scratch notes that would be exculpatory	Defendants: record does not prove additional notes existed beyond what was produced	Court: Overrules objection — record before magistrate did not establish existence of additional notes; new testimony submitted later cannot be raised for first time on objection
Duty to preserve evidence	Police had duty to preserve interview notes, clothing, and video during investigation and thereafter for foreseeable litigation	Defendants: civil litigation was not reasonably foreseeable at the time and some items were not required to be preserved for the criminal investigation	Court: Even assuming a duty to preserve, magistrate’s denial rests on other elements (culpability, relevance, prejudice); any error on duty would be harmless
Culpable state of mind & relevance of clothing recovered/lost at scene	Loss was intentional/bad faith or at least grossly negligent and clothing would be favorable to Khatabi’s innocence claim	Defendants: clothing was lost negligently during station renovation; no evidence of deliberate misconduct or that clothing would be exculpatory	Court: Agrees with magistrate — loss was at worst negligent; no presumption of relevance; sanctions not warranted
Culpable state of mind & relevance of videotape erased within ~60 days	Tape was intentionally destroyed or withheld; note in file suggests concealment; tape would corroborate timing/entry and be exculpatory	Defendants: tape was overwritten per retention practices; no evidence note refers to tape or that destruction was in bad faith	Court: Magistrate reasonably found negligent or at most grossly negligent erasure; plaintiff failed to show sufficiently that tape would have been favorable or that prejudice warrants severe sanctions

Key Cases Cited

West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776 (2d Cir.) (defining spoliation)
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (elements for severe spoliation sanctions)
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y.) (duty to preserve; foreseeability standard)
Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.) (police preservation obligations discussed)
Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing magistrate authority re: dispositive vs nondispositive sanctions)
Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (gross negligence may permit adverse inference)