Redding v. Dale County et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 89

ORDER denying 88 Motion for Sanctions, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/21/16. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRAWICK REDDING, JR.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
ZENETH GLENN, et al,
Defendants

CIV. ACT. NO. 1:15-cv-539-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
On November 21, 2016, the court heard argument on the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions
for spoliation of evidence. (Doc. # 88). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
At the time this case was filed, the defendants were Dale County, Dale County Sheriff
Wally Olson, Dale County Jailer Ron Nelson, deputies Ryan Mittelbach and Zeneth Glenn and a
contract medical provider for the Dale County Jail. At the time of the argument, the only
defendants remaining are Mittlebach and Glenn.
The motion for sanctions is premised on “the failure of Sheriff Olson and Ron Nelson to
preserve important video evidence from cameras that are located throughout the Dale County Jail
which would have definitively identified a proper timeline of events with respect to the issues
regarding what occurred as it pertains to the claims made by Trawick Redding.” (Mot. for
Sanctions, Doc. # 88 at 2) The first and most obvious problem with the motion is that the
persons who allegedly failed to preserve the evidence are no longer parties, and the plaintiff has
not suggested that the remaining defendants had any authority over or involvement with a failure
to preserve the video evidence.

Secondly, the plaintiff has not shown that with respect to preservation of the video
evidence there was any bad faith on the part of anyone. Sanctions for spoliation of evidence are
intended “to prevent unfair prejudice to litigants and to insure the integrity of the discovery
process.” Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 427 F.3d 939, 944 (11th Cir. 2005). “Spoliation”
refers to “the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property
for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” West v. Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2nd Cir. 1999). To determine whether and what
sanctions for spoliation should be imposed, five factors should be considered: (1) prejudice to the
affected party; (2) whether the prejudice can be cured; (3) the practical importance of the
evidence; (4) whether the party acted in bad faith; and (5) “the potential for abuse if expert
testimony about the evidence was not excluded.” Flury, 427 F.3d at 945.
Based on the submissions and arguments of the parties, the court finds there is no basis
for the imposition of sanctions in any event. While a complete video of the events may not now
exist, a cell phone copy of part of the video does exist and the plaintiff has access to the persons
who were involved in the incident. Thus, any prejudice can be cured to a great extent, especially
since the existing video confirms the presence of a snake in the jail and the identity of the
persons who brought the snake into the jail.
Moreover, it is not at all clear that the video has any real practical importance. The
plaintiff argues that “the deposition testimony and documentary evidence in this case is
contradictory in many material aspects and also creates more questions than answers as to the
original video. Many of the discrepancies would have been resolved if the video surveillance
evidence was simply preserved.” (Mot. for Sanctions, Doc. # 88 at 2) The plaintiff does not
identify what discrepancies would be cleared up or how he knows that is so. His contention is

2

pure speculation. Finally, there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of any party. The
remaining defendants were fired for bringing the snake into the jail and what portions of the
video of the event which do exist was used to support their termination.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the motion for sanctions (Doc. # 88) be and is hereby DENIED.
Done this 21st day of November, 2016
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3