Zhang v. The City of New York

Background

Man Zhang and Chunman Zhang sued the City of New York and other entities and individuals over the wrongful death of their father, Zhiquan Zhang. The opinion states that Zhiquan Zhang was arrested in April 2015, held as a pretrial detainee at Rikers Island, and died there on April 18, 2016. An autopsy determined that his cause of death was hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The case included constitutional, wrongful-death, negligence, malpractice, discrimination, and other claims. Earlier rulings dismissed most claims, leaving wrongful-death, negligence, malpractice, and a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim against specified defendants.

Discovery-sanctions dispute

During discovery, the plaintiffs sought sanctions for alleged destruction or failure to preserve evidence, including surveillance video and telephone recordings. On August 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Wang granted the sanctions motion in part and denied it in part. She denied the plaintiffs’ requests for default judgment and an instruction allowing the jury to infer that missing evidence would have harmed the defendants, finding no indication that the defendants destroyed evidence in bad faith or with an intent to deprive. She did, however, award the plaintiffs the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigating the spoliation motion because she found that the defendants had a duty to preserve certain video and telephone recordings.

The defendants sought reconsideration. During an October 29, 2019 conference, Magistrate Judge Wang ruled that the defendants did not have a duty to preserve 90 days of video from all approximately 2,000 cameras at Rikers Island. After supplemental briefing, she granted reconsideration on August 17, 2020 and denied the plaintiffs’ spoliation motion in its entirety. She concluded that it would be unfair to require the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs for litigation concerning recordings destroyed in the ordinary course when the plaintiffs had not given sufficient and reasonable notice before the electronically stored information was destroyed.

District court review

The plaintiffs objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which allows a district judge to set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge John F. Keenan reviewed the parties’ submissions, Magistrate Judge Wang’s written decisions, and the conference transcript. He concluded that the magistrate judge’s findings, reasoning, and legal support were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Disposition

Judge Keenan adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s October 29, 2019 oral ruling and her August 20, 2019 and August 17, 2020 written orders in their entirety. The plaintiffs’ objections were overruled; their motions to set aside Magistrate Judge Wang’s orders were denied; their request for sanctions for alleged evidence destruction was denied; and each side was ordered to bear its own costs. This order addressed discovery and sanctions rather than the merits of the underlying wrongful-death and related claims.