Mays v. Andrew William Schroeder acting

Background

Plaintiff Yolanda Mays moved for discovery sanctions against Defendant Alan Douglas Salvosa under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). The motion concerned electronically stored information—specifically, footage from Salvosa’s body-worn camera during a March 21, 2023 incident at Mays’s home. Mays alleges that police officers entered and searched her home after seeing what turned out to be a baby doll through a window. Salvosa allegedly kicked in the door and participated in the response.

Salvosa’s camera footage was categorized as “Assist Other Agency,” which resulted in a 90-day retention period. The footage would have been automatically deleted on June 19, 2023. Mays submitted a complaint about the officers’ conduct on March 22, 2023, and her lawyer sent a data request on April 13, 2023, seeking body-camera footage and other records. The footage was not produced and is no longer available. Other officers’ footage and Salvosa’s deposition provided some information, but the court found they did not fully replace Salvosa’s own recording.

Analysis

The court first held that conduct by the City of Brooklyn Center, the Brooklyn Center Police Department, and Sergeant Brandon Zabel could be considered in deciding whether sanctions against Salvosa were appropriate. The court relied on the employment and indemnification relationship described in the record and on the relationship between the individual officer and the police department. It therefore considered the preservation conduct of the department and its employees, not only Salvosa’s personal conduct.

The court concluded that the duty to preserve the footage arose no later than April 13, 2023. Mays’s complaint and her lawyer’s data request should have alerted the City and the police department that the footage was relevant to possible future litigation. The court also found that the responsible parties failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the footage and that additional discovery could not restore or replace it.

Under Rule 37(e)(2), severe sanctions such as an instruction allowing the jury to presume the lost evidence was unfavorable require an intent to deprive another party of the evidence’s use in the litigation. The court found that the record did not establish that intent. Although the court was concerned about the department’s retention practices, training, and possible failure to follow state-law or internal preservation requirements, it found that the inconsistent retention could have resulted from ignorance, confusion, or misunderstanding rather than an intent to deprive Mays of the footage. Negligence or gross negligence was not enough for Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions.

Under Rule 37(e)(1), the court found prejudice because Salvosa’s footage could have provided a different and more helpful perspective on what he heard before entering the home, what he knew about how long other officers had observed the doll, and what he said or did after entering. The court determined that Mays’s attorneys’ fees and costs for investigating the missing footage and litigating the sanctions motion were a measure no greater than necessary to address that prejudice. The court held that a finding of bad faith or intent to deprive was not required for a fee award under Rule 37(e)(1).

Ruling

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that Mays’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions against Salvosa was granted insofar as Mays was awarded attorneys’ fees and costs incurred because of the discovery and motion practice concerning the lost footage, and was otherwise denied. Within 14 days, Mays must serve Salvosa with a statement of her reasonable expenses. If Salvosa objects to the amount, he must file objections within seven days after receiving the statement, and Mays may respond within seven days after that filing. The court will decide the amount based on the written submissions unless it determines that a hearing is necessary. The order states that nothing precludes the City from indemnifying Salvosa for those reasonable expenses.