Sparks v. Henderson County Sheriffs Office et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 53 Motion for Preservation/Protection of Evidence. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 11/1/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:16-cv-9-FDW
KART KALANI SPARKS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HENDERSON COUNTY SHERIFFS
)
OFFICE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preservation/Protection of
Evidence, (Doc. No. 53).
In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court requiring Defendants to preserve
all relevant evidence in this action, including videotape footage. The Court finds that an order
requiring Defendants to preserve evidence is unnecessary because Defendants already have a
duty to preserve evidence. Under the doctrine of spoliation, parties have a duty to preserve
(including a duty to not destroy) evidence when litigation is filed or becomes reasonably
anticipated. See Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001); Goodman v.
Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 509 (D. Md. 2009). To fulfill the duty to preserve
relevant evidence, “[o]nce a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it is obligated to suspend its
routine document retention/destruction policy and implement a “litigation hold” to ensure the
preservation of relevant documents.” Id. at 511. Here, if Defendants destroy any exculpatory
evidence they will be subject to sanctions. However, because they are already under a duty to
preserve evidence, an order from this Court is not necessary. Accord Wright v. Webber, C/A
1

No. 1:11-2199-TLW-SVH, 2011 WL 6112371, at *3 (D.S.C. Nov. 10, 2011) (“Plaintiff has not
shown that he will suffer irreparable damage if an injunction does not issue, as Defendants
already have a legal duty to preserve existing evidence when a lawsuit is filed.”); McNair v.
Ozmint, C/A No. 3:07-3470-HFF-JRM, 2008 WL 2128121, at *4 (D.S.C. May 20, 2008)
(denying a motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve cassette tapes because there
already existed a duty to preserve material evidence).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preservation/Protection of
Evidence, (Doc. No. 53), is DENIED.

2