Zhang v. The City of New York

Background

Man Zhang and Chunman Zhang, individually and as administrators of the estate of Zhiquan Zhang, sought sanctions against the defendants for allegedly failing to preserve surveillance videos and telephone recordings. In an August 20, 2019 opinion and order, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions in part and denied it in part. The court found that the plaintiffs’ April 26, 2016 personal-injury claim form created a duty to preserve certain additional surveillance videos beyond the video preserved of Zhiquan Zhang’s death, and directed the plaintiffs to submit an application for attorneys’ fees and costs.

The defendants moved for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The defendants had previously relied on the wrong notice of claim—the July 2016 notice instead of the April 2016 notice—and had not adequately presented arguments about proportionality or their investigation and preservation efforts. The plaintiffs opposed reconsideration and also argued that the earlier sanctions ruling did not provide a sufficient remedy.

Issue on Reconsideration

Judge Wang narrowed the issue to whether the specific language in the April notice of claim required the defendants to preserve surveillance videos other than the video of Zhang’s fatal heart attack. The notice said that Zhang had reported serious health conditions and chest pain and had requested medical attention and treatment for almost a year, particularly during the last four months. It did not mention electronically stored information, videos, or any particular type of evidence.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), sanctions for lost electronically stored information require the moving party to show that the information should have been preserved because litigation was anticipated or ongoing, that it was lost because the opposing party failed to take reasonable preservation steps, and that the information was relevant to the litigation. The court also considered proportionality, meaning whether the preservation effort was reasonable in relation to the likely importance and burden of preserving the information.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the April notice of claim did not provide sufficient notice that surveillance footage beyond the video of Zhang’s death had to be preserved. The notice did not identify particular dates, locations, or interactions that would have made other footage relevant. The court noted that the facility had more than 2,100 cameras recording continuously and that preserving and reviewing footage from all of them would have imposed an enormous burden.

The court also found, based on information supplied during the reconsideration proceedings, that the defendants had begun investigating Zhang’s death before receiving the April notice and had preserved medical records, medication records, medical imaging, laboratory studies, Zhang’s inmate file, and staff schedules. The court concluded that these preservation efforts were timely and reasonable.

Judge Wang held that reconsideration was appropriate under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief from an order for another reason that justifies it in exceptional circumstances. She criticized the defendants’ initial briefing but concluded that the defendants had ultimately presented significant policy, proportionality, and preservation arguments. She also found that imposing monetary sanctions for the sanctions motion would be unjust because it would reward discovery tactics that had unnecessarily prolonged the dispute.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and denied the plaintiffs’ spoliation motion in its entirety. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The opinion does not decide the underlying wrongful-death or medical-malpractice claims.