In
a §1983 action against a prison guard for use of excessive force, the court held
that negligent destruction of evidence did not warrant an adverse inference
instruction when sufficient copies of the evidence were available to
Plaintiff. During discovery, an agent of
defendant erased a videotape of the intake procedure at question while attempting
to make a physical copy. Agent had not
used the machine to make a copy previously, and the court determined his actions constituted
negligence. Defendants produced multiple
copies of the tape during discovery, all of which were largely identical to the
original copy. As such, erasure of the
tape did not materially prejudice plaintiff.
The appellate court held that the trial court had not abused its
discretion in finding that an adverse inference was unwarranted because a
sanction for negligent destruction of evidence is in no sense mandatory.
v.
Scott SALIUS, Defendant–Appellee,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,* H. Lappin, G.L. Herschberger, Rau, John Rowland, Richard Blumenthal, Wayne Choinski, Carol Arriro, Theresa C. Lantz, Lynn Milling, Terrance Rose, Esther Torres, Jeffrey McGill, Brian Bradway, John Does, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants
Counsel
Jeffrey J. White (Craig A. Raabe, Katherine S. Kayatta, on the brief), Robinson & Cole LLP, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff–Appellant.Matthew B. Beizer, Assistant Attorney General, for George Jespen, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, for Defendants–Appellees.
SUMMARY ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.