Romero v. Regions Financial Corporation/Regions Bank, 1:18-cv-22126

Background

Plaintiff Carmen Romero, a 63-year-old former Regions Bank employee, was terminated after an account was opened using allegedly unacceptable identification (a Cuban passport) on May 28, 2016.
Regions’ system allegedly would have flagged a Cuban passport; Regions says Romero entered passport data but labeled it as a Florida ID to circumvent safeguards; Romero later testified she did not open the account and blamed supervisor Leysi Pumar.
Regions preserved surveillance footage for May 28, 2016 from about 9:00–10:45 A.M. showing the customer interaction but did not preserve the later end-of-day footage purportedly showing a confrontation between Pumar and Romero.
Romero moved for spoliation sanctions under Rule 37(e), seeking an adverse inference jury instruction, exclusion of video reliance at summary judgment, and fees/costs, arguing the missing end-of-day footage was critical to rebut Regions’ justification for termination.
The court found the missing footage immaterial to Romero’s age-discrimination claim, concluded Romero could not show prejudice under Rule 37(e)(1), and found no evidence Regions acted with intent to deprive under Rule 37(e)(2).
The court denied the spoliation motion and Romero’s request for attorney’s fees related to the motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether missing surveillance ESI warrants sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1) (prejudice standard)	Romero: end-of-day footage would show Pumar confronted her and is necessary to rebut Regions’ non-discriminatory reason and to show pretext/prejudice	Regions: preserved footage of the relevant customer interaction; later footage immaterial to age-discrimination claim and not necessary to prove pretext	Denied — Romero failed to show the lost footage was important to her discrimination claim and thus no prejudice under 37(e)(1)
Whether harsher sanctions (adverse inference/dismissal) are warranted under Rule 37(e)(2) (intent to deprive)	Romero: Regions’ failure to preserve suggests culpable conduct warranting an adverse inference	Regions: no evidence of intentional destruction; preserved the segment showing the key customer interaction; loss, at worst, negligent	Denied — no evidence Regions acted with intent to deprive; preservation duty did not clearly extend to full-day footage
Scope of duty to preserve surveillance footage	Romero: whole-day footage should have been preserved once dispute about who opened the account arose	Regions: duty limited to footage relevant to the identified event; it preserved the period showing the customer transaction	Court: duty did not extend to entire day; Regions’ preservation of customer-interaction footage was sufficient
Entitlement to fees/costs for bringing spoliation motion	Romero: requested fees incurred investigating and moving for sanctions	Regions: sanctions unwarranted so fees unjustified	Denied — motion itself denied; no fees awarded

Key Cases Cited

Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co., 341 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2003) (defines spoliation and recognizes court discretion to sanction)
Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 427 F.3d 939 (11th Cir. 2005) (discusses scope of inherent authority and that severe sanctions require bad faith)
ML Healthcare Servs., LLC v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 881 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2018) (refused adverse inference where unpreserved video would only permit speculative inferences)
S.E.C. v. Goble, 682 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 2012) (adverse inference instruction predicated on bad faith failure to preserve)