Taylor v. Warden of the Manhattan Detention Center
- Alison Nathan
- 1:17-cv-07360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Roy Taylor v. City of New York, Judge Fox denied Taylor’s request for sanctions over allegedly altered video because the motion lacked required papers and supporting evidence.
Roy Taylor’s request for a jury instruction or other sanctions concerning allegedly altered or unpreserved video footage was denied; the defendants were not sanctioned.
What happened
In Roy Taylor v. City of New York, Roy Taylor, representing himself, asked the court to instruct the trial jury that defendants had altered unfavorable video footage or electronically stored information. He did not identify the footage or explain when or how it was altered.
The court found that Taylor’s motion did not include the required notice, legal memorandum, or affidavit and supporting record. It also found no evidence that the footage existed, should have been preserved, was not preserved, or could not be restored or replaced through further discovery.
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied Taylor’s motion on procedural and substantive grounds. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to mail Taylor a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Warden of the Manhattan Detention Center · No. 1:17-cv-07360
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 13, 2020
Background
Roy Taylor, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a one-page motion titled “Motion to Consider More Evidence of Altered Footage and Render Decision in My Favor.” The court understood the motion as asking for a jury instruction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2)(B), based on Taylor’s allegation that defendants had altered unfavorable video footage or other electronically stored information.
Taylor did not specifically identify or describe the alleged footage. He also provided no facts showing that the footage existed or explaining when or how it was altered. He relied on an opinion from the Eastern District of Virginia involving a surveillance recording that had not been preserved. The defendants did not respond to Taylor’s motion, and the response deadline passed.
Legal standard
The court explained that evidence spoliation means destroying or significantly altering evidence, or failing to preserve property for use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Under Rule 37(e), a court may order measures to address prejudice caused by lost electronically stored information. More serious sanctions, including a jury instruction allowing or requiring an unfavorable presumption, require a finding that the party intended to deprive the other side of the information’s use in the litigation.
The court also noted that motions in the Southern District of New York generally must include a notice identifying the legal basis and requested relief, a memorandum of law, and affidavits and exhibits containing necessary factual information and record materials. A self-represented litigant’s status does not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive law.
Court’s reasoning
The court found Taylor’s motion procedurally flawed because he did not include the required notice of motion, memorandum of law, or affidavit setting out the necessary facts and record materials.
Independently, the court found that the motion record contained no evidence establishing that electronically stored information existed, should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation, was not preserved by defendants, or could not be restored or replaced through additional discovery. Without that evidence, the court found no basis to impose a sanction under Rule 37(e).
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied Taylor’s motion, Docket Entry No. 99, on procedural and substantive grounds. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Taylor a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.