Hood v. City of Columbus et al

Filing 394

ORDER denying 389 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 4/18/2022. (cmw)

Case: 2:17-cv-00471-EAS-EPD Doc #: 394 Filed: 04/18/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 15655

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ADRIENNE HOOD,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00471

V.

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
JASON BARE, et al..

Defendant.

SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (EOF No. 389). Plaintiff

argues that the CMC Acadia vehicle, a piece of evidence in this case, was improperly altered by
Defendants' expert. Defendants filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 392). Forthereasons that
follow. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants Jason Bare and Zachary Rosen drove the GMC Acadia vehicle during the

shooting between them and Henry Green on June 6,2016. The GMC Acadia sustained numerous
bullet holes and at least one broken window as a result ofthe shooting. On June 7,2016, the GMC

Acadia was transported to the Columbus Police Impound Lot and processed by Columbus police
detectives. Afterprocessing, the Columbus Police returned the GMC Acadia to Enterprise Rental.
On August 22, 2016, Plaintiffs counsel served a litigation hold letter on Defendants. The
Columbus Police recovered the vehicle from Enterprise Rental on August 31,2016. At some point

between August2016 and October2021,defenseexpertMatthew Noedelremoved an interiordoor

panel and a rear-view mirror on the driver's side and moved a window weather strip to retrieve
bullets.

Case: 2:17-cv-00471-EAS-EPD Doc #: 394 Filed: 04/18/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 15656

Plaintiff contends that these alterations were significant and highly prejudicial to her case.

She requests that the Court issues sanctions against Defendants, order Defendants to pay all fees
and costs associatedwith filing their motion for sanctionsand instructthe jury that the vehicle was
spoliated.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a court is authorized to impose sanctions

on a party for spoliation of evidence. Goldman v. Healthcare Mgmt. Sys., Inc., No. l:05-CV-35,
2006 WL 3589065, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006). When deciding whether to sanction a party

for the spoliation of evidence, courts consider: (1) the degree of culpability of the party who lost

or destroyed the evidence, and (2) the degree of actual prejudice to the otherparty. SeeSchmid v.
Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir. 1994); Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 986
F.2d 263 (8th Cir. 1993); Clark Constr. Group v. City ofMemphis, 229 F.R.D. 131, 138 (W.D.
Tenn. 2006). A court will not find spoliation of evidence unless the party"destroyed evidence that

[was] in its control, [and] unless theparty didso in bad faith." Tucker v. GMC, 945 F.2d 405 (6th
Cir. 1991) (collecting cases).

In the instant case, there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Defendants and the

alterations do not prejudice the Plaintiff. First, as to the weather stripping that was positioned
differently by Mr. Noedel, Defendants have offered to move the strip back to the position it was

in following the shooting. Second, as to the detached mirror, thereareample pictures of thevehicle
afterthe shootingbut beforeprocessing with the mirrorattached. Plaintiffs concemsthat the jury
will believe Mr. Green shot off the mirror are unfounded because the parties can stipulate that the

mirror was attached after the shooting or Plaintiff can illicit testimony from Mr. Noedel that he
removedthe mirror. The same stipulationsor evidence are available for the removed interior door

panel. Plaintiff may explain that the interior door panel was removed for processing and display

Case: 2:17-cv-00471-EAS-EPD Doc #: 394 Filed: 04/18/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 15657

pictures of the attached door panel during trial. In sum, this is not a case where evidence was
deleted, lost, or materially changed without explanation. Plaintiff is not prejudiced by these
alterations because there are numerous methods of explaining the three alterations to thejury. The
Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion (EOF No. 389).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE

EDMUl^A SARGUS, JR.
UNITED-STATES DISTRICT JUDGE