Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martinez v. White

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah

December 21, 2018

LEONEL MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF
v.
RANDY WHITE, Warden, et al., DEFENDANTS

          Leonel Martinez, pro se

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court

         This matter is before the Court upon three motions by Plaintiff Leonel Martinez: a Motion for this Court to Reject Defendants for Bringing False Claims, [R. 257]; a Motion for Default Judgment, [R. 258]; and a Motion for Sanctions, [R. 259]. The Defendants responded, [R. 260.] This matter is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, Martinez's Motion for this Court to Reject Defendants for Bringing False Claims, [R. 257], is DENIED; Martinez's Motion for Default Judgment, [R. 258], is DENIED; and Martinez's Motion for Sanctions, [R. 259], is DENIED.

         On May 15, 2018, this Court ordered the Defendants to make three surveillance videos requested by Martinez available to him for viewing. [R. 253 at 3-4.] On June 5, 2018, the Defendants responded to the order, stating that the videos requested “either never existed or have been overwritten during the normal security operations of the Kentucky State Penitentiary.” [R. 254 at 5.] The Defendants filed an affidavit from the Deputy Warden of Security at Kentucky State Penitentiary, Steven Ford, explaining that without a reason to store the video footage, the data would have been overwritten within thirty days or less. [R. 254-1 at 1.] Subsequently, Martinez filed three motions in response to the Defendants' inability to produce the video footage. [See R. 257; R. 258; R. 259.] Essentially, these motions amount to a request for the Court to sanction the Defendants for failing to provide the video footage that he previously requested.

         Specifically, in Martinez's third motion, [R. 259], he asks the Court to sanction the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). [R. 259 at 1.] Rule 37(e) states:

(e) Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information. If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:
(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or
(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation may:
(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).

         In deciding whether to assess sanctions for spoliation, the Court conducts a two-step inquiry. In re Black Diamond Min. Co., 514 B.R. 230, 237 (E.D. Ky. 2014). First, the Court must determine whether sanctions are appropriate at all. Id. A spoliation sanction is warranted where the moving party establishes:

(1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed “with a culpable state of mind”; and (3) that the destroyed evidence was “relevant” to the party's claim or defense such that a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.