Watson v. Driskill et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reconsider (Docket No. 41 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 1/28/2020. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PIERRE WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZACHARY DRISKILL, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:18-cv-00764-NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Pierre Watson’s motion to reconsider the
Court’s order of January 22, 2020. (Docket No. 40). In that order, the Court denied plaintiff’s
motion to obtain electronically stored information, as the Court had not yet issued a case
management order or authorized discovery. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider repeats his earlier
request to access surveillance video. Plaintiff states his concern that the surveillance footage will
be destroyed, and alleges that since defendants violated his constitutional rights, there is nothing
to stop them from “committing a criminal act in order to keep from being held accountable.”
Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that it should be denied. As stated before, the
Court has not yet issued a case management order or authorized discovery in this case. Moreover,
plaintiff has not presented any factual allegations, beyond his bare assertions, that defendants will
improperly dispose of potential evidence. Finally, defendants are under an obligation to preserve
potentially relevant evidence under their control. Any failure to preserve such evidence might lead
to sanctions for spoliation of evidence. See Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Wade, 485 F.3d 1032, 1035
(8th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Docket No. 41) is
DENIED.

NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of January, 2020.

2