45 F. Supp. 3d 1099
D. Ariz.2014Background
- Pettit, an Arizona prisoner, alleges Defendant Smith used excessive force during an April 16, 2011 escort; several contemporaneous items (escort video, a PACE personnel report, an April 20 medical photo, and possible investigative reports) are now missing.
- Morrow (a sergeant) took the escort video to her supervisor Littleton, reported Smith’s unprofessional conduct, and—at Littleton’s direction—wrote a PACE report; Littleton later ordered the video erased a few days after the incident.
- Pettit wrote an inmate grievance the same evening alleging assault; a nurse observed hand injuries that day and medical staff photographed his hand on April 20 (photo now missing).
- ADC (Arizona Department of Corrections) controlled the evidence and funds defense/indemnifies employees; court found ADC was not a neutral third party and had a duty to preserve evidence once litigation was reasonably likely.
- The deleted video and other missing materials were highly relevant and their loss prejudiced Pettit; the court found ADC’s conduct at least grossly negligent but did not find bad faith by the individual Defendants.
- Court granted limited spoliation relief: will permit jury instruction that ADC failed to preserve evidence and allow an adverse-inference instruction (jury may infer lost evidence would favor Pettit); precluded Defendants from using after‑the‑fact substitute videos; denied case-dispositive sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did a duty to preserve arise and who owed it? | ADC (and thus defendants) should have preserved the video, reports, and photos once litigation was reasonably likely (Morrow took video to Littleton; Pettit filed grievance). | ADC is a nonparty and preserving every escort video is unduly burdensome; no duty until ADC evaluated grievance. | ADC had a duty to preserve in these circumstances; duty triggered by facts here (video brought to supervisor + grievance). |
| May ADC’s spoliation be imputed to the named Defendants? | Spoliation by ADC should be imputed to defendants in §1983 action so Pettit can obtain appropriate sanctions. | Defendants had no personal culpability; imputing ADC’s loss would impermissibly burden defendants and implicate Eleventh Amendment concerns. | Court declined to impute spoliation as attribution of culpability to Defendants but allowed sanctions that explain ADC’s loss to jury and permit adverse inference without accusing Defendants of spoliation. |
| Were the missing items relevant and did Pettit suffer prejudice? | The video, PACE report, and photograph were contemporaneous, objective evidence central to excessive-force claims and their loss prejudices Pettit. | Other witnesses and records exist; missing items are duplicative or of dubious relevance. | Court held missing evidence was highly relevant and Pettit suffered prejudice from its loss. |
| What sanctions are appropriate? (including whether case-dispositive relief is warranted) | Pettit sought case-dispositive relief (directed verdict that excessive force occurred) and exclusion of certain defense evidence. | Defendants argued drastic sanctions are unwarranted absent bad faith; less severe remedies suffice. | Case-dispositive sanctions denied (no bad faith); court ordered adverse-inference instruction re ADC’s failure to preserve, allowed parties to present evidence about loss, and barred use of post‑hoc substitute videos. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court should consider proportionality and five-factor test before imposing dispositive sanctions)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (court’s inherent power to sanction for bad faith and abusive litigation conduct)
- Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (limits on imputing state wrongdoing to individual employees where Eleventh Amendment concerns arise)
- Adkins v. Wolever, 692 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2012) (denial of spoliation sanctions where preservation was beyond individual officer’s control; deference to prison administration)
- Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497 (D. Md. 2010) (spoliation standard and that agent’s spoliation may be attributable to principal)
- Akiona v. United States, 938 F.2d 158 (9th Cir. 1991) (adverse-inference instruction warranted where destruction was wrongful and there was notice of potential relevance)
- Med. Lab. Mgmt. Consultants v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 306 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2002) (adverse-inference inappropriate where loss was inadvertent or merely negligent)
- Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 982 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1992) (severe sanctions justified when loss of critical physical evidence deprives opponent of meaningful defense)