Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

ORDER THE PRESERVATION OF

DOCUMENTS

(ECF No. 29)

PlaintiffRichardCharlesHanna is appearingpro se andin forma pauperisin this civilrights action

pursuantto 42U.S.C. § 1983. OnMay13, 2013,Plaintifffiled amotion seeking a court order prohibiting

Defendantsfromdestroyingvideotapes or audiotapestaken in theMariposaCountyJail onApril 8, 2011,

and to save alllogs, documents,taser cartridges, blood samples,Breathalyzertestreadouts, and hospital

records relating to his arrest and an booking on April 8, 2011.

“Litigants owe an uncompromisingdutyto preservewhat theyknoworreasonably should know

will be relevant evidence ina pendinglawsuit, or one in the offing. . . .” JUDGEWILLIAM W.SCHWARZER

ETAL., FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 11:125 (2004) (internal quotations and citations

omitted); see alsoLeon v.Sys.Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9thCir. 2006). This obligation, backed bythe

court’s powerto impose sanctions for the destruction of such evidence, Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501

U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), is sufficient in most cases to secure the preservation of relevant evidence. 

Before the court orders additionalmeasurestopreserve evidence,theremust be some showingthat

there is a reason to be concerned that potentially relevant evidence will not be preserved and that the

1

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 30 Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

opposing partymaybe harmed as a result. Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., No. 08-cv-1462-IEG-RBB, 2008

WL4104473, *1 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). Given the dutyto preserve evidence and the absence of any

showing by Plaintiff that there is reason for the Court to be concerned about the destruction of any

evidence,Plaintiff’smotion shall be denied. TheCourt declinesto presume that Defendantswill destroy

evidence and Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the videotapes, audiotapes,logs, documents, taser

cartridges,blood samples,Breathalyzertestreadouts, or hospitalrecords are indangerof beingdestroyed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 16, 2013 

i1eed4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 30 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2 of 2