Boyer et al v. Taylor et al
Filing
407
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence is GRANTED-in-part. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/6/2015. (mdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
AMIRFATIR,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
V.
)
)
STANLEY TAYLOR, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-)
C.A. No. 06-694 (GMS)
ORDER
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2015, the plaintiff, Amir Fatir ("Fatir"), filed a Fourth
Amended Complaint (D.I. 379) against Stanley Taylor, Thomas Carroll, David Pierce, Janet
Henry, Marvin Creasy, James Satterfield, Ronald Pawlowski, Floyd Dixon, Ralph Bailey, Joyce
Talley, Jerry Platt, Terry Yoder and Tanya Smith (collectively, the "defendants") alleging
violations of his constitutional rights;
WHEREAS, presently before the court is Fatir's Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of
Evidence and defendants' response thereto (See DJ. 393-12; DJ. 399);
WHEREAS, having considered the parties' positions as set forth in their oral arguments,
papers, and the applicable law;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fatir's Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence
is GRANTED-in-part. 1
1
fees.
Fatir seeks sanctions in the form of a jury instruction adverse to the defendants and in the form of attorneys'
Dated: July lL_, 2015
Generally, spoliation refers to situations where a party has altered, destroyed, or failed to produce evidence
"relevant to an issue in a case." Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 68, 73 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Brewer v.
Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 72 F.3d 326, 334 (3d Cir. 1995)). "Spoliation occurs where: [l] the evidence was
in the party's control; [2] the evidence is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case; [3] there has been actual
suppression or withholding of evidence; and, [4] the duty to preserve the evidence was reasonably foreseeable to the
party." Bull, 665 F.3d at 73.
Fatir asserts that the defendants either intentionally or through extreme recklessness destroyed or allowed to be
destroyed documents that are relevant to his claims and likely probative of the defendants' violations of Fatir's
constitutional rights. The defendants' primary dispute is whether the evidence is relevant in light of other evidence
of record. The defendants admit to never receiving a litigation hold memo or instruction to preserve relevant
documents from counsel until April, 2015, at the very close of discovery and nearly a decade after the commencement
of this litigation. As a result, critical information was not preserved. The defendants admit that certain documents
and e-mails were destroyed. The court concludes that the emails and photos in question were relevant information
that should have been preserved.
As such, the court finds a curative instruction for spoliation of evidence is appropriate in this case.
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?