Abrams, Leslie J., United States District Judge
Plaintiffs brought a motion for spoliation sanctions claiming that defendants' destroyed a camera that contained photo evidence relevant to their case. After weighing the Flury factors, the court found that an adverse inference jury instruction on the spoliation was the most appropriate sanction.
When plaintiffs were arrested for trespass, their truck and trailer were impounded. A camera containing photos was inside the truck. One of the defendants admitted that he entered the impound lot without any lawful authority and broke into plaintiffs' truck with the intention of retrieving some of his possessions. Defendant further admitted that he accessed plaintiffs' camera, downloaded some of the photos onto his computer but maintained that he left the camera inside the truck after downloading the photos. The camera has never been returned to the plaintiffs and was never located after that.Plaintiffs claimed that their missing camera contained photos, in particular one photo, that was necessary and relevant to prove their case. Defendants, however, contended that because there was no concrete evidence that the photograph ever existed, this was a classic case of “'he said, she said' that may ultimately require a jury to decide who was telling the truth, but was not something that was appropriate for a spoliation sanction. The court explained that the issue in this case was not whether plaintiffs had concrete evidence that the camera contained a specific photo, but rather, whether defendants tampered with or destroyed a camera alleged to have such photos.
Having considered the defendants' culpability for the loss of the camera, their motives for tampering with the camera, and the questionable conduct surrounding the production and use of the illegally obtained photos, the court found that:
this is not a circumstance of inadvertent destruction of evidence or negligence in the loss of material data from which the court is being asked to infer bad faith. Rather, it is a case of knowing and willful disregard for the clear obligation to preserve evidence that was solely within the possession and control of defendants and whose contents have no other source than that which has now been spoliated. Under such circumstance, the prejudice to the plaintiffs is substantial; Defendants' bad faith is clear; and sanctions are warranted.
The court explained that it was looking for a remedy that would "alleviate the prejudice to plaintiffs, while also eliminating any unfair advantage regarding the evidence presented at trial." Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff's motion for sanctions and stated that it would provide an adverse inference jury instruction regarding defendants' spoliation of the camera. However, the court would also instruct the jury that defendants were free to introduce evidence to rebut that adverse presumption, but would be prohibited from introducing those photos illegally obtained from the camera. In addition, defendants were ordered to reimburse plaintiffs for the reasonable expenses and fees incurred in connection with this Motion.
v.
BUTTS COUNTY, GEORGIA, SHERIFF GENE POPE, Individually and in his Official Capacity, TIMOTHY FILBECK, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendants
Counsel
James A. Eidson, Hapeville, GA, Matthew Clinton Hines, Austell, GA, for Plaintiffs.G. Kevin Morris, Terry E. Williams, Buford, GA, for Defendants.
ORDER
Please state the names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers of all persons whom you believe to have any knowledge or information about any facts that support any of the allegations of the complaint or support any of the denials or defenses contained in your answer.
*17 Discovery is not a game of cat and mouse, of continual pursuit and near capture by one party and endless escape by the other. It is intended to be a self-executing, extrajudicial exercise that depends upon the parties' careful attention to and compliance with the rules. Judicial involvement should be reserved for those genuine disputes that infrequently occur about the scope of discovery or some asserted privilege. But far too frequently courts are forced to deal with dawdling, foot-dragging, discourteous, or mean-spirited litigants or counsel about petty disputes that could have been avoided had counsel simply lived up to their clear obligations under the rules.