Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dillon Companies, Inc.
Filing
150
ORDER denying 139 Motion for Reconsideration, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 12/7/11.(lsw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 09-CV-02237-RBJ-MEH
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DILLON COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant moves for reconsideration (Docket #139) of the portion of the Court’s order of
November 21, 2011 (Docket #135) regarding the giving of an adverse inference instruction based
upon spoliation of evidence. Defendant argues that the Court patently misunderstood or failed to
apprehend undisputed evidence that employee Stringer pushed or bumped the supervisor
Sedillos; that the accidental loss of copies of the videotapes therefore was not prejudicial; and
that an adverse inference instruction is “entirely inappropriate.”
The Court in its November 21 order did address whether what occurred in the booth was
disputed, whether the absence of the videotape is prejudicial to the plaintiff, and whether the loss
of the videotapes was accidental. The Court has again considered the evidence submitted by the
defendant, including deposition testimony of Mr. Stringer and the statements and deposition
testimony of defendant’s personnel who recalled or paraphrased Mr. Stringer’s statements during
their investigation. However, the Court remains convinced that Mr. Stringer’s version of what
occurred during the incident, including the alleged provocation and the bumping or pushing, is
1
not the same as the defendant’s version. Because defendant’s claimed ground for termination of
Mr. Stringer, and not terminating other employees who allegedly committed inappropriate acts,
rests on its view of what occurred in the booth, it is necessarily prejudicial to Mr. Stringer not to
have the opportunity to have the jury observe the videotape of the incident as well as the two
participants’ testimony and reach its own conclusions about what occurred and why it occurred.
The Court also remains convinced that the evidence suggests that the loss of all three
copies of the tape that were made from the master tape and, particularly, the tampering with the
master tape, were not accidental. The evidence, which defendant does not dispute or even
address in its motion for reconsideration, is that defendant’s security officer “popped the tab” on
the master tape so that it could not be recorded over. However, when he went to make a fourth
copy of the videotape, he found that someone had put a piece of tape over the tab, thus allowing
the master tape to be recorded over and its contents lost. Valdez depo. at 30, 32.
Defendant can certainly present whatever evidence it might have to explain its efforts to
preserve the master tape and copies, and how despite those efforts the loss of these tapes was
accidental. However, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its prior order. The Court finds,
based on the undisputed evidence, that this is a sufficiently serious if not egregious instance of
spoliation of evidence and that the adverse inference instruction is warranted. The Court also
denies defendant’s request that the issue be certified for an immediate interlocutory appeal.
DATED this 7th day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge
2
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?