John v. County of Lake

Background

The case concerns two November and December 2017 searches for Lindsay Williams, who was on probation and the subject of an arrest warrant. The residences searched were inhabited by family members, including Beverly John, Jacqueline John, Lyann Williams, and Mario Williams. The plaintiffs generally alleged that the searches were unlawful and that defendants used excessive force.

The complaint asserted federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unreasonable search, invasion of privacy, and excessive force. It also asserted claims under the California Constitution, the California Civil Code, and California common law. The case originally named Lake County, individual law-enforcement officers, the City of Lakeport, and other officers as defendants. After summary-judgment and reconsideration rulings, some defendants and claims remained.

Discovery dispute

The plaintiffs requested emails, text messages, phone records, and other communications concerning Lindsay Williams and the searches. Defendants represented during discovery that the individual defendants did not use their cell phones to communicate about the incidents and that there were no responsive phone records. A later-produced text-message chain, supplied by a non-defendant officer, showed communications among individual defendants and other law-enforcement officers about searching for Williams.

The opinion states that defendants’ counsel said Castellanos and Martinez had deleted the text-message chain from their phones. Counsel had not previously arranged for the phones to be imaged and had relied on the individuals to search their own phones. Castellanos also testified that he deleted emails when his mailbox was full and did not review them before deletion. Martinez testified that he continued his regular practice of deleting text messages even after learning that documents had to be preserved. Lake County’s information-technology director testified that no litigation hold had been placed on the relevant email records until March 9, 2020.

Spoliation findings

“Spoliation” means the loss or destruction of evidence that should have been preserved for litigation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), the court considered whether the electronically stored information should have been preserved, whether defendants failed to take reasonable preservation steps, whether the information could be restored or replaced, and whether the loss prejudiced the plaintiffs.

Judge Kim found that all three preservation criteria were met. She concluded that the duty to preserve arose no later than the plaintiffs’ administrative claims, the filing of the complaint, the discovery requests, or the district court’s February 14, 2019 warning that defendants had to preserve emails and text messages. She found that defendants failed to preserve and search the information adequately, that the lost emails and text messages could not be recovered through other means, and that the plaintiffs were prejudiced because the missing information could have addressed important issues such as defendants’ knowledge of Williams’s address and their attitude toward the plaintiffs.

Judge Kim also found that defendants acted with an intent to deprive the plaintiffs of the evidence. She relied especially on the district court’s explicit preservation warning and defendants’ failure to establish effective preservation procedures afterward. She found sanctions warranted under both Rule 37(e) and the court’s inherent authority.

Requested sanctions and rulings

The plaintiffs requested an adverse-inference instruction, meaning an instruction allowing the jury to presume that lost evidence was favorable to the plaintiffs. Judge Kim found the requested instruction appropriate and recommended that the district court give it at trial. The opinion does not state that the district court had adopted the recommendation.

The plaintiffs also sought sanctions against defense counsel under Rule 26(g). Judge Kim found that the record did not make clear whether defendants or their counsel were responsible for the discovery failures. She therefore assessed the sanctions against defendants only at that time, rather than against counsel. The opinion states that defendants could seek to shift the sanctions to counsel only through a process involving independent counsel.

The plaintiffs requested $105,949.98 in attorneys’ fees. Judge Kim granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, but reserved the amount for determination after final submissions. She granted leave for the plaintiffs to submit additional fees and costs for work on the reply by July 17, 2020, and allowed defendants to respond on that issue by July 31, 2020.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for sanctions, recommended that the district court provide the adverse-inference instruction at trial, and granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined after final submissions.