Peterson v. Washington County Jail

Background

Brandon Robert Peterson initially filed this action without a lawyer. After he obtained counsel, he filed a second amended complaint asserting claims involving the conditions of his confinement and excessive force, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, denial of access to counsel and the courts, a claim against Washington County under Monell, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, several state-law claims, and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

The defendants answered the earlier complaints without demanding a jury trial. In their report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), they stated that neither party had demanded a jury and described the anticipated trial as a two-day bench trial. The court placed the case on its non-jury trial calendar. Defendants did not request a jury until March 9, 2021, about fourteen months after the second amended complaint and after the parties had made several consistent scheduling representations about a bench trial.

Peterson separately sought sanctions for alleged destruction or loss of body-worn-camera footage. He asserted that he complained about abusive conduct and jail conditions, threatened to sue, and asked the Washington County Jail to preserve evidence. The jail’s policy generally allowed body-camera footage to be deleted after 180 days unless it was marked for indefinite retention. At least 26 incidents involving Peterson were recorded, but footage from only three dates was preserved. Defendants stated that, after learning of the lawsuit, they attempted to retrieve the other footage but were told it could not be recovered. They also argued that other evidence, including closed-circuit video, incident reports, and deposition testimony, was available.

Motion for Jury Trial

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 generally requires a party to demand a jury within 14 days after receiving a pleading; otherwise, the right is waived as to issues raised in that pleading. Rule 39(b) nevertheless allows a court to order a jury trial on an issue for which a jury could have been demanded. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the length of the delay, the reason for it, possible prejudice, and the effect on the court’s schedule.

Defendants attributed their late request to a change in trial strategy after Peterson obtained counsel and expanded the case by adding claims and defendants. The court found that explanation insufficient. It concluded that defendants had the opportunity to request a jury when the case expanded, that the fourteen-month delay could not be overlooked, and that changing to a jury trial would impose an unexpected change on Peterson after he had prepared for a bench trial. The court also found that moving the case to the jury calendar would significantly postpone resolution and disrupt the court’s already backlogged schedule.

The court therefore denied Defendants’ Motion for Jury Trial. The case was to proceed as previously anticipated on the non-jury trial calendar.

Motion for Spoliation Sanctions

Spoliation means destroying, significantly altering, or failing to preserve evidence that should have been maintained for pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), a court may order measures to address prejudice caused by lost electronically stored information. More severe measures—such as an instruction that the lost evidence was unfavorable, dismissal, or default judgment—require a finding that the party acted with intent to deprive the opposing party of the information. The court also stated that sanctions for prelitigation spoliation, dispositive sanctions, or attorneys’ fees require an explicit finding of bad faith.

Peterson requested that the court strike defendants’ defenses, award attorneys’ fees and costs, prevent defendants from introducing or relying on evidence related to incidents that would have been recorded, and presume that the missing footage would show excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical or mental-health needs. Defendants argued that their duty to preserve the footage was not triggered until they received the filed complaint, that they did not act in bad faith, and that other evidence was available.

The court denied with prejudice Peterson’s request to strike all defenses because he had not made the required showing of bad faith. The court found Peterson’s requests for attorneys’ fees, restrictions on defendants’ use of evidence, and an adverse inference premature. It denied those requests without prejudice to raising them later as evidentiary issues at the pretrial or trial stage. The court’s final order denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ Motion for Jury Trial and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions. Within the sanctions ruling, the request to strike all defenses was denied with prejudice, while the requests for attorneys’ fees, evidence-related restrictions, and an adverse inference were denied without prejudice. Judge Donovan W. Frank signed the order on June 30, 2021.