Mays v. Andrew William Schroeder

Background

Plaintiff Yolanda Mays brought this action against Sergeant Andrew William Schroeder and Sergeant Mark Joseph Suchta (both of the Minneapolis Police Department), Officer Alan Douglas Salvosa (of the Brooklyn Center Police Department), and the City of Minneapolis. Mays alleged that the officers forced entry into her home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officers contended that exigent circumstances — specifically, what appeared to be an infant in distress inside the home — justified the entry; the object turned out to be a doll.

A key factual dispute involved what Officer Salvosa knew when he arrived on scene. Other body-worn camera footage captured Sergeant Schroeder telling Officer Salvosa that he and Sergeant Suchta had been watching the apparent infant for approximately ten minutes. Officer Salvosa stated in his deposition that he did not know they had been watching for that long, but acknowledged that had he known, the situation "probably would have been less of an emergency."

During discovery, Mays learned that Officer Salvosa's body-worn camera had been activated during the incident but that the footage had been deleted pursuant to the Brooklyn Center Police Department's routine retention policy.

The Discovery Sanctions Motion

Mays moved for discovery sanctions against Officer Salvosa under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which governs sanctions for the loss of electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved. She requested two remedies: (1) an adverse inference instruction — a jury instruction directing jurors to assume the missing footage would have harmed Salvosa — under Rule 37(e)(2); and (2) attorney's fees and costs under Rule 37(e)(1).

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright held a hearing, received supplemental briefing, and issued a detailed order granting the motion in part. She found that: - The footage should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation; - It was lost because responsible parties did not take reasonable steps to preserve it; and - It could not be restored or replaced through additional discovery.

On the remedy, Magistrate Judge Wright granted attorney's fees and costs under Rule 37(e)(1), finding that Mays was prejudiced by the deletion. She denied the adverse inference under Rule 37(e)(2), finding insufficient evidence of intent to deprive Mays of the footage.

Officer Salvosa's Objections

Officer Salvosa timely objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which allows a district judge to review a magistrate judge's ruling on a nondispositive (non-case-ending) matter for clear error or legal error. He did not challenge the core findings that the footage should have been preserved, was lost through failure to take reasonable steps, and could not be recovered. He raised only two objections.

Objection 1: Whether Mays Sought Rule 37(e)(1) Sanctions

Officer Salvosa argued that Mays never requested sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1) — only under Rule 37(e)(2) — so awarding fees under that subsection was procedurally improper.

Judge Provinzino overruled this objection. The court found that Mays's briefing before Magistrate Judge Wright explicitly referenced both Rule 37(e)(1) and Rule 37(e)(2), and that her arguments focused on the prejudice she suffered from the loss of the footage — a factor relevant to Rule 37(e)(1) but not required under Rule 37(e)(2). The motion plainly invoked Rule 37(e)(1).

Objection 2: Whether Mays Was Prejudiced

Officer Salvosa argued that the deletion of his body-worn camera footage did not prejudice Mays, emphasizing that the footage would not have been dispositive of the exigent-circumstances question and that footage from Sergeants Suchta's and Schroeder's cameras — which was produced — already captured the relevant interactions.

Judge Provinzino overruled this objection as well, for several reasons:

- Dispositive is not the standard. Lost evidence need not be case-dispositive to cause prejudice. The standard asks whether the lost evidence would have been different from or more helpful than existing evidence. - Officer Salvosa's own testimony supports prejudice. Salvosa acknowledged in deposition that had he known the officers had been watching for ten minutes, the situation "probably would have been less of an emergency." What he actually heard at the scene is thus highly relevant, and footage from his perspective would have been the best available evidence on that point. - The footage was not merely cumulative. Even if the other officers' body-worn camera footage captured some of the same events, it did so from different physical perspectives. The court noted that the best evidence of what Salvosa heard was a recording from his vantage point, not from Sergeant Schroeder's camera, which was positioned feet away as Schroeder was walking away. - The missing footage likely affected the outcome. Judge Provinzino noted that, as discussed in a concurrently filed summary judgment order, the lack of evidence that Salvosa heard Sergeant Schroeder's statement was ultimately fatal to Mays's Fourth Amendment claim against Salvosa. Had the footage captured the statement and Salvosa's reaction, it might have created a genuine factual dispute preventing summary judgment.

Standard of Review

The court applied the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a): a district judge must set aside or modify a magistrate judge's nondispositive order only if it is "clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." This is described as "extremely deferential" review. An order is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed," and contrary to law when it "either fails to apply or misapplies pertinent statutes, case law or rules of procedure."

Disposition

Judge Provinzino overruled Officer Salvosa's objections and affirmed Magistrate Judge Wright's order granting discovery sanctions. Officer Salvosa remains obligated to reimburse Mays for attorney's fees and costs associated with the discovery and motion practice regarding the loss of his body-worn camera footage. The adverse inference instruction remains denied.

The court also noted — in agreement with Magistrate Judge Wright — that even without finding intentional destruction, the inconsistent retention of body-worn camera footage "cannot be tolerated," regardless of whether it stemmed from ignorance, confusion, or misunderstanding of applicable policies.