Laughlin v. Stuart

Background

The plaintiffs sued in August 2019. Michael B. Hari alleged that Anoka County Jail officials took legal materials from his cell in May 2019 and later returned them. Hari asked jail officials to preserve a video that he believed showed Deputy JoAnne Maro finding the materials. Jail officials denied his request to provide the video, stating that videos were not provided to inmates.

Hari later sought the video and other materials through discovery. The defendants said that, if the video ever existed, it would have been destroyed some time earlier. After the court ordered defendant James Stuart to respond to discovery, the defendants produced documents, requested clarification about broad requests covering more than 2,000 phone calls, and made additional productions, including nearly 1,800 pages. The defendants reported spending more than forty hours responding to the discovery requests.

Motion for sanctions

Hari sought sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which addresses the failure to preserve electronically stored information. The court denied the motion for two reasons.

First, the court found no evidence that the requested video ever existed. Hari had assumed the room where Deputy Maro found his materials had video surveillance, but he provided no documentary evidence, testimony, interrogatory answers, or other record evidence supporting that assumption. The court therefore held that it could not sanction the defendants for destroying evidence when Hari had not made a minimal showing that the evidence existed.

Second, the court held that even if the video existed, Hari had not shown that the defendants had a duty to preserve it. The duty to preserve evidence arises when the party controlling it knows or should know that the evidence is relevant to current or future litigation. The court rejected the argument that an inmate can create that duty simply by asking jail officials to preserve evidence. Hari had not identified the federal lawsuit mentioned in his preservation request, its claims, or the factual allegations supporting those claims. The court concluded that jail officials therefore had no way to assess whether the video would be relevant to litigation.

Motion for an order to show cause

Hari also asked the court to issue an order requiring the defendants to explain why they should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s discovery order. The court denied this motion. It assumed, without deciding, that the defendants had not fully complied, but found that they had made good-faith and reasonable efforts to comply.

The defendants had not produced Hari’s request to preserve the alleged video, but Hari already possessed that request and had relied on it in the case. The court found that this minor or inadvertent omission did not justify contempt. The defendants were still reviewing potentially responsive phone calls and emails, had supplemented their production multiple times, and had produced substantial additional discovery. The court also explained that it could not require production of materials that did not exist or were not in the defendants’ possession, custody, or control. Finally, Hari had not identified the discovery request that supposedly covered the post orders or explained why those documents were relevant, so the court could not conclude that the defendants clearly violated its order by withholding them.

Other rulings and future motion practice

The court granted Hari’s motion to withdraw his original motion for an order to show cause. It also granted his request to file both reply briefs and related attachments under temporary seal, subject to the local rules and a joint motion about continued sealing. The court stated that it did not consider either reply brief because Hari had not obtained permission to file replies in support of these nondispositive discovery motions.

The court observed that Hari had made little effort to conduct the required meet-and-confer process before filing his motions. Because Hari was representing himself, the court reminded him that he still had to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Minnesota’s local rules. For future motions requiring a meet and confer, the court required him to submit the relevant correspondence and response or a detailed account showing that a genuine, good-faith discussion occurred. The court stated that it would deny future motions summarily if he failed to provide that documentation.

Disposition

The court ordered that: (1) Hari’s Rule 37(e) sanctions motion was DENIED; (2) Hari’s amended motion for an order to show cause was DENIED; (3) Hari’s motion to withdraw his original show-cause motion was GRANTED; and (4) Hari’s request to file his reply brief under temporary seal was GRANTED. The court stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect.