Ransom v. Andrews

Background

Christopher Ransom, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that while he was a pretrial detainee at Rikers Island, Correction Officer C.O. Andrews returned him to a cell in rear handcuffs even though Ransom’s cellmate had threatened him. Ransom alleged that the cellmate assaulted him and that Andrews failed to intervene. Ransom brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows certain claims against state actors, alleging that Andrews was deliberately indifferent to his safety.

Ransom sought the surveillance video of the July 9, 2021 incident during discovery. The New York City Department of Correction’s system automatically deleted surveillance video after 90 days unless the video was separately preserved. The court found that the video was deleted on October 7, 2021. Andrews had submitted a written incident report, but the incident apparently was not reported to the Central Operations Desk, so the video was not initially preserved. After the Law Department learned of the lawsuit, neither it nor the assigned Department of Correction legal representative made the separate preservation request needed to save the video.

Rule 37(e) analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) governs lost electronically stored information, including video. Under the rule, the court may order measures necessary to cure prejudice when a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve information that should have been preserved. More severe measures—such as presuming that the lost information was unfavorable, instructing a jury to make that presumption, dismissing the action, or entering default judgment—require a finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.

Judge Moses found that the first requirement was satisfied. She accepted that Andrews took appropriate initial action by submitting an incident report and found no evidence that Andrews knew or should have known that his superiors failed to report the incident properly. The court therefore did not attribute those initial Department of Correction failures to Andrews. But the court held that the failures of the lawyers representing Andrews could be attributed to Andrews. Because those legal personnel knew about the case and the 90-day deadline but did not ensure that the video had been preserved or make a separate preservation request, the court found that reasonable preservation steps were not taken.

The court also found prejudice. Although the video had no sound and therefore would not directly show whether Ransom’s cellmate made the alleged threat or whether Andrews heard it, the video could have shown whether Ransom was still handcuffed when placed in the cell and whether Andrews failed to intervene while Ransom was on the floor. The court found that this was relevant, non-cumulative, and potentially powerful evidence.

The court found that the intent requirement for the severe sanctions was not met. Ransom acknowledged that he could not prove the video was deliberately deleted, and the court found no evidence that Andrews or his counsel acted intentionally rather than negligently. As a result, sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2) were unavailable.

Sanction and disposition

The court held that a lesser sanction under Rule 37(e)(1) was appropriate. Because Ransom was representing himself and was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court could not award attorney’s fees or costs. Instead, if the case reaches trial, Ransom may present evidence and argument to the jury that surveillance video existed, could and should have been preserved within the 90-day period, and was not preserved because of mistakes on two occasions.

The court did not authorize an instruction allowing or requiring the jury to presume that the missing video would have been unfavorable to Andrews. The conclusion states that Ransom’s motion for spoliation sanctions was GRANTED to the extent set forth above.