Brown v. Elliot et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 29 motion for sanctions and directing the plaintiff to file an affidavit of fees and costs for the court's review on or before August 10, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 7/20/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Arlean K. Brown, as the Personal
Representative of Melvin K. Lawhorn,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Brian Elliot; Jim Matthews, both individually )
and in his official capacity as the Sheriff of
)
Kershaw County; Kershaw County Sheriff’s
)
Office; and Kershaw County,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:14-1188-JMC-PJG

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, including default
judgment and other relief, against the defendants for alleged spoliation of evidence.1 In support of
her motion, the plaintiff contends that the defendants repeatedly responded in the negative to her
discovery requests as to whether the police vehicles involved in the encounter at issue were equipped
with dashboard cameras. Subsequently, the plaintiff discovered photographic evidence depicting
a camera in Officer Threatt’s vehicle. In opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendants have
presented an affidavit from Sheriff Matthews explaining that while a camera head unit was installed
in Officer Threatt’s vehicle, it was not operational at the time because the Sheriff’s Department was
transitioning to a different brand of video recording equipment for its vehicles and, at the time of the
events at issue, Officer Threatt’s vehicle had not yet been equipped with the new hard-drive storage
system necessary to record any video. (Matthews Aff. ¶¶ 9-13, ECF No. 35-1 at 2.)
1

For a discussion of the facts giving rise to this case, see the court’s Report and
Recommendation entered July 20, 2016. (ECF No. 43 at 2-3.)
Page 1 of 2

Based on the record before it, the court is constrained to conclude that the plaintiff has failed
to establish that any video of the encounter at issue ever actually existed. Moreover, in light of the
court’s conclusions in the Report and Recommendation issued contemporaneously herewith, the
plaintiff’s request for a default judgment based on alleged spoilation of evidence would appear to
be moot, since no material dispute of fact exists for video evidence to assist in resolving.
Nonetheless, the court shares the plaintiff’s frustration and chagrin that the defendants did not
accurately respond to her discovery requests regarding the existence of cameras in the police vehicles
involved in this case. Amidst a national atmosphere of civil unrest and apprehension toward law
enforcement stemming from numerous videos from incidents across the country capturing violent
encounters between police and African-American citizens,2 the repeated lack of a forthright and
precise response from the defendants regarding the presence of a camera in Officer Threatt’s police
vehicle is indeed disturbing. The court therefore finds it appropriate to award the plaintiff the
attorney’s fees and costs she incurred in connection with pursuing the instant motion. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(c). The plaintiff shall file an affidavit of fees and costs for the court’s review on or before
August 10, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
July 20, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2

The record indicates that in this case both the officer and the plaintiff’s decedent were
African American.
Page 2 of 2