(PC) Marti v. Rosario et al
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/07/2021 DENYING 28 Motion to Compel the preservation of evidence without prejudice. (Rodriguez, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
No. 2:20-cv-00897-CKD P
ORDER
14
ANTHONY ROSARIO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
18
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion
19
to compel the preservation of evidence. ECF No. 28. In light of the parties’ stipulation to amend
20
the discovery and scheduling order governing this case, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion
21
without prejudice for the reasons outlined below.
22
I.
Factual and Procedural History
23
This case is proceeding on Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
24
defendants Rosario, Brown, Vanni, Altschuler, and Kassis; an Eighth Amendment failure to
25
protect claim against defendants Rosario and Brown; a First Amendment retaliation claim against
26
defendants Rosario, Brown, and Vanni; and supplemental state law tort claims against all
27
defendants. See ECF No. 9 (screening order). The events at issue occurred while plaintiff was an
28
inmate at Mule Creek State Prison.
1
1
On September 9, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel the CDCR to
2
preserve audio and video surveillance footage without prejudice. ECF No. 9. The court
3
determined that the motion was premature because defendants had not even been served with the
4
complaint. Id.
5
On April 22, 2021, plaintiff filed a renewed motion to compel defendants to preserve
6
audio and video surveillance footage from Mule Creek State Prison. ECF No. 28. The motion
7
seeks prison surveillance footage from various locations on four different dates ranging from
8
January 14, 2019 to June 8, 2019. ECF No. 28 at 1-2. Plaintiff indicates that he submitted
9
several requests to preserve this evidence to different prison officials at Mule Creek prior to
10
initiating this lawsuit. ECF No. 28 at 3-4. Plaintiff further indicates that he was provided the
11
opportunity to view some video surveillance footage and photographs related to the issuance of a
12
May 6, 2019 Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) against him. See ECF No. 28 at 24-27. However,
13
his motion to preserve relates to additional video surveillance footage from different dates and
14
locations in the prison.
15
A discovery and scheduling order was entered by the court setting a discovery deadline of
16
August 20, 2021. ECF No. 27. Since that date, the parties have stipulated to extend the discovery
17
and scheduling deadlines governing this case. ECF No. 31.
18
II.
Legal Standards
19
As the court has previously indicated, “a litigant is under a duty to preserve evidence
20
which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the action.” Ameripride Svcs., Inc. v.
21
Valley Indus. Serv., Inc., 2006 WL 2308442, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2006) (citation omitted).
22
This obligation, backed by the court’s power to impose sanctions for the destruction of such
23
evidence, is generally sufficient to secure the preservation of relevant evidence. Chambers v.
24
Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991). In reviewing a motion to preserve evidence, the court
25
engages in a balancing test of several factors. Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., 2008 WL 4104473 (S.D.
26
Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). These factors include:
27
28
“1) the level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and
maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the
absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence; 2) any
2
1
irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the preservation
of the evidence absent an order directing preservation; and 3) the
capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the evidence
sought to be preserved….”
2
3
4
Daniel v. Coleman Co., Inc., 2007 WL 1463102 at *2 (W. D. Wash. May 17, 2007) (citation
5
omitted).
6
III.
Analysis
7
Plaintiff filed the pending motion to preserve evidence before discovery had even
8
commenced. At this early stage in the litigation, plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendants
9
have failed to produce the requested audio and video surveillance footage pursuant to his formal
10
discovery request. More importantly, there is no indication in the record that such video
11
surveillance footage has been destroyed. The Mule Creek State Prison Operational Procedure for
12
Audio/Video Surveillance Systems indicates that audio and video footage shall be preserved for
13
longer than one year when it involves “potential evidence in an investigation, an administrative,
14
civil, or criminal proceeding” involving “[a]llegations of inmate misconduct…” or ‘a]llegations
15
of staff misconduct by an inmate.” ECF No. 28 at 14. Given the duty to preserve evidence and
16
the absence of any showing by plaintiff that there is reason for the court to be concerned about the
17
destruction of this evidence, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice.
18
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel the
19
preservation of evidence (ECF No. 28) is denied without prejudice.
20
Dated: June 7, 2021
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
12/mart0897.mtc.docx
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?