Hanna v. Mariposa County Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Order the Preservation of Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 5/16/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
ORDER THE PRESERVATION OF
DOCUMENTS

v.
MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.,
et al.,

(ECF No. 29)

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
16
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order prohibiting
17
Defendants from destroying videotapes or audiotapes taken in the Mariposa County Jail on April 8, 2011,
18
and to save all logs, documents, taser cartridges, blood samples, Breathalyzer test readouts, and hospital
19
records relating to his arrest and an booking on April 8, 2011.
20
“Litigants owe an uncompromising duty to preserve what they know or reasonably should know
21
will be relevant evidence in a pending lawsuit, or one in the offing . . . .” JUDGE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER
22
ET AL., FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 11:125 (2004) (internal quotations and citations

23
omitted); see also Leon v. Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). This obligation, backed by the
24
court’s power to impose sanctions for the destruction of such evidence, Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501
25
U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), is sufficient in most cases to secure the preservation of relevant evidence.
26
Before the court orders additional measures to preserve evidence, there must be some showing that
27
there is a reason to be concerned that potentially relevant evidence will not be preserved and that the
28
1

1

opposing party may be harmed as a result. Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., No. 08-cv-1462-IEG-RBB, 2008

2

WL 4104473, *1 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). Given the duty to preserve evidence and the absence of any

3

showing by Plaintiff that there is reason for the Court to be concerned about the destruction of any

4

evidence, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied. The Court declines to presume that Defendants will destroy

5

evidence and Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the videotapes, audiotapes, logs, documents, taser

6

cartridges, blood samples, Breathalyzer test readouts, or hospital records are in danger of being destroyed.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
i1eed4

May 16, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2