Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00490/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00490-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAMILTON, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORP., et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

No. C 05-0490 CW (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against defendant Signature Flight Support

Corporation ("Signature"). Plaintiffs seeks sanctions for the destruction of video surveillance recordings that

allegedly contained evidence critical to Plaintiffs' claims. After careful consideration of the parties' papers,

oral arguments at the December 15, 2005 hearing, the applicable statutory and case law authorities, and

good cause appearing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for the reasons set forth below.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

This case involves claims of discrimination against African Americans and women, and retaliation

against employees who complain about unlawful practices. Signature is a flight support operation providing

services to private planes and executive jets. Signature serves as a Fixed Based Operator ("FBO") at

numerous airports, which means it leases infrastructure from airports to provide services and amenities to

private aircrafts. Plaintiffs are four African American employees who worked at Signature's San Francisco

FBO.

On July 15, 2004, an incident occurred between plaintiff Bobby Jones and defendant Val Vaden,

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Signature's customer. Based on the parties' arguments and the surveillance video provided by Plaintiffs in

connection with this motion (Decl. of Steve Cikes, Ex. H), it appears that the altercation initially started as

Mr. Vaden entered the FBO entrance in his vehicle. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Vaden almost hit Mr. Jones

as he raced down the driveway at an excessive rate of speed. While walking toward the parking lot and

away from Mr. Vaden's vehicle, the video shows that Mr. Jones turned to face the direction of Mr. Vaden

and his vehicle, putting his hands in the air while walking backwards. Apparently in response to Mr. Jones

motions and/or words, Mr. Vaden walks up to Mr. Jones. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Vaden then attempted

to rip his name tag off of his chest. The video shows that Mr. Vaden grabbed the name tag, although it is

unclear if he tried to rip it off his chest or grabbed it to read his name, and then walked away from Mr.

Jones and back towards the FBO entrance as Mr. Jones continued to head towards the parking lot. The

video continues uninterrupted for approximately one minute after this incident, during which Mr. Jones

continues walking to the parking lot and Mr. Vaden is seen around his vehicle.

At this point there is a gap in the video and the next portion of the video shows Mr. Jones and Mr.

Vaden in the same camera view. The two appear to be in an altercation which started before they entered

the camera's view. Messrs. Jones and Vaden continue the altercation for over three minutes in the video,

when it abruptly ends. At one point in this second portion Mr. Jones walks away from Mr. Vaden, but

then comes back and the two continue arguing. There appears to be no physical contact between them in

the second portion of the video. Signature contends that Mr. Vaden reported that Mr. Jones called him an

"asshole" and subjected him to other inappropriate and unprofessional conduct. On July 26, 2004,

Signature terminated Mr. Jones' employment. 

Although the factual circumstances of the altercation are in dispute, Signature informed Plaintiffs in

its initial disclosures that it possessed video recordings of the July 15 incident. On August 3, 2005,

Signature produced a compact disc containing two segments from a surveillance camera at Signature's San

Francisco location, containing recordings of the July 15 incident.

On August 24, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel requested that Signature provide the original video

recording in addition to all other video recordings from Signature's San Francisco FBO from July 15, 2004. 

Plaintiffs' counsel further requested information concerning Signature's surveillance recording systems as

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

well as a chain of custody of the DVD disc produced. Signature's counsel responded that the disc

produced contained the only remaining footage from that day because Signature's surveillance system

automatically records over previous tapings every 15 to 30 days and that the compact disc contained the

only two recordings that actually showed the incident.

B. Procedural Background

On November 7, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Signature

Flight Support Corporation for Spoliation of Evidence. Plaintiffs also filed the Declarations of Steve Cikes

and Bobby Jones in support thereof.

On November 23, 2005, Signature filed its Opposition, as well as the Declarations of Robert

Wilger, Steve True, Norman Ramirez, Val Vaden, and Paul Jurusov in support thereof.

On December 1, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.

On December 7, 2005, Signature filed the Supplemental Declaration of Robert Wilger, which

contains portions of the deposition of Bobby Jones. As Mr. Jones' deposition transcript was unavailable at

the time Signature filed its opposition, the Court permitted its late filing and allowed Plaintiffs the opportunity

to file a response thereto.

On December 12, 2005, Plaintiffs filed the Declaration of Donald Hamilton, and on December 13,

2005, they filed the Supplemental Declaration of Steve Cikes. 

On December 13, 2005, Signature filed its Objections to Plaintiffs' declarations, arguing that the

declarations are not responsive to the Court's December 8 Order and contain additional evidence that was

available either at the time Plaintiffs filed their motion or their reply. Finding it preferable to decide this

matter on its merits, the Court permitted the late filing of Plaintiffs' declarations.

On December 15, 2005, the Court held a hearing on the matter. Steve Cikes and Sharon Vinick

appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Alan Carlson appeared on behalf of Signature.

III. DISCUSSION

In their motion, Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Signature for its alleged destruction of evidence,

thereby substantially prejudicing Plaintiffs' ability to prosecute this action and support their claims. Plaintiffs

contend that the recordings produced by Signature are incomplete and altered in three respects. First,

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 3 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

Plaintiffs note that there is a time gap between the two segments, and there is no time marking of the disc to

determine the size of the time gap. Second, Plaintiffs note that the recording ends prematurely, as the

incident appears to continue as the recording abruptly ends. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the compact

disc contains only the recording from one camera when it is clear that the incident took place in the field of

view of other cameras; particularly another outside camera, the camera in the corridor leading to the door,

and the camera in the lobby. Plaintiffs seek issue related sanctions establishing that Signature did not have a

proper basis for terminating Mr. Jones and barring all defenses to the contrary.

In response, Signature argues that it preserved the only video of the incident and that Plaintiffs filed

the present motion in an effort to overcome conclusive evidence that it had good cause to terminate Mr.

Jones. Signature further argues that Plaintiffs failed to properly investigate their motion prior to filing,

submitted no evidence to support their claim that critical evidence has been destroyed, and provided no

evidence that they have been prejudiced in their ability to prosecute their claims. Signature contends that

numerous witness statements, including those made by Bobby Jones himself, conclusively establish that the

video is a true and accurate recording of what happened on July 15, 2004. As such, Signature requests

that the Court deny the motion and award Signature monetary sanctions for the costs of having to oppose

their motion.

A. Legal Standard

Courts are vested with inherent powers that are "governed not by rule or statute but by the control

necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious

disposition of cases." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R.

Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). The Ninth Circuit has recognized as part of a district court's inherent

powers the "broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair

and orderly trial." Campbell Indus. v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir.1980) (citations omitted). 

Thus, sanctions for spoliation of evidence may be imposed under the court's inherent power to manage its

own affairs. Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 130 (2d Cir. 1998). 

Where the nature of the alleged breach of a discovery obligation is the non-production or

destruction of evidence, courts have broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction, including the

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 4 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

giving an adverse inference instruction. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin'l Corp., 306 F.3d

99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 267 (2d

Cir.1999)). "[A] party seeking an adverse inference instruction based on the destruction of evidence must

establish (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 reasonable trier of fact could

find that it would support that claim or defense. Id. (citing Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, 243 F.3d 93,

107-12 (2d Cir.2001)).

Courts determine the proper sanction for destruction of relevant evidence on a case-by-case basis. 

Unigard Security Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng. & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992). The

following factors are generally considered in choosing an appropriate sanction: "(1) the degree of fault of the

party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party;

and (3) whether there is a lesser sanction that will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party and,

where the offending party is seriously at fault, will serve to deter such conduct by others in the future." 

Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir. 1994).

B. Application to the Case at Bar

Here, before determining any sanction for destruction of evidence, the Court must first determine

whether any spoliation actually occurred. On the date of the incident, defendant Steve True, Area General

Manager responsible for Signature's San Francisco FBO, requested that Paul Jurusov, the base's Facilities

and Equipment Manager, review the video that afternoon to determine if any of the incident was captured

on the closed circuit television system at the base. Although there are 43 cameras on the base, Mr. Jurusov

states that he found only one camera that recorded the incident. Decl. of Paul Jurusov ¶ 5. Mr. Jurusov

downloaded the video of the incident to two compact discs, and Signature ultimately provided a copy to

Plaintiffs. Thus, Signature argues that it preserved the only recording of the incident that existed.

Upon review of the surveillance video, it is apparent that Signature destroyed at least a portion of

the evidence. Specifically, it is undisputed that the second portion of the recording ends prematurely, prior

to the altercation's conclusion. Thus, the Court finds that Signature did destroy at least a portion of the

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 5 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

relevant surveillance video and rejects Signature's argument to the contrary.

1. Whether Plaintiffs have established that Signature destroyed relevant evidence with a

culpable state of mind

As Plaintiffs seek an adverse inference instruction establishing that Signature did not have a proper

basis for terminating Mr. Jones and barring all defenses to the contrary, the Court shall examine the three

factors set out in Residential Funding Corp., 306 F.3d at 107.

a. whether Signature had an obligation to preserve the surveillance video

First, Plaintiffs must show that Signature had an obligation to preserve the surveillance recordings

from the July 15 incident. Id. Plaintiffs argue that Signature was on clear notice that litigation was likely to

result from Mr. Jones' termination because Signature knew that: (1) he had just two months prior filed a

formal complaint of racial discrimination with the company; (2) Mr. Jones was a witness for plaintiff Donald

Hamilton's charge of discrimination against it; and (3) Mr. Jones maintained that he did not act

inappropriately throughout the altercation and had provided the company with independent witnesses to

support his version of the events. Plaintiffs contend that these instances, taken together, sufficiently placed

Signature on notice that litigation arising from Mr. Jones' termination would soon follow.

In response, Signature argues that it had no notice that Mr. Jones would file any claim as a result of

his termination. Signature states that Mr. Jones did not inform anyone within Signature that he would be

challenging the decision. Although Mr. Jones had previously made complaints to Signature that he believed

he was being discriminated against, Signature contends that he had never threatened to take his claims to

the EEOC or to file a civil action over his complaints. Signature states that it was not until September 1,

2004, when it received Mr. Jones' charge filed with the EEOC, that it learned of his intentions.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds that Signature was obligated to preserve the

surveillance recordings. First, although Signature did not receive notice of Mr. Jones' EEOC charge until

September 1, 2004, six weeks after the July 15 incident, it knew that Mr. Jones had made a previous

internal complaint of discrimination and maintained that the discriminatory acts persisted. Second, Mr.

Jones maintained that he did not act inappropriately during his encounter with Mr. Vaden and that the video

surveillance footage of the incident would support his version of the events. Third, Signature's own conduct

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 6 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

while investigating the July 15 incident tends to support the finding that litigation arising from Mr. Jones'

termination was reasonably foreseeable. During the course of its investigation, Signature personnel made

the conscious decision to excerpt two segments from the surveillance recording. Opp. at 3:19-4:7, Jurusov

Decl. ¶ 7. Signature personnel then proceeded to save those segments onto a compact disc and provided

them to defendant Dennis Smith, the company's vice president of human resources who had previously

"investigated" Mr. Jones' internal complaint of discrimination. Id. Given the totality of the circumstances,

the Court finds that Signature was obligated to preserve the surveillance video. See Broccoli v. Echostar

Communications Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506, 510-12 (D. Md. 2005) (holding that the employer was on

sufficient notice that litigation arising from plaintiff's termination was foreseeable where plaintiff complained

of supervisor's harassing behavior to management before expressly notifying employer of her intention of

filing suit); see also Brynie, 243 F.3d at 108 (noting that in a hiring discrimination action the defendant had

notice of potential litigation even earlier than the time the complaint charge was filed because, in particular,

defendant received a FOIA request seeking materials related to the hiring process, and that the plaintiff had

expressed concerns with the defendant about the hiring process). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have met its

burden for this factor.

b. whether Signature acted with a culpable state of mind

Next, Plaintiffs must show that Signature acted with a culpable state of mind. Residential Funding

Corp., 306 F.3d at 107. This factor is satisfied by a showing that the evidence was destroyed "knowingly,

even if without intent to [breach a duty to preserve it], or negligently." Id. at 108 (quoting Byrnie, 243 F.3d

at 109). Here, Signature concedes that the video ends prematurely, but it does not adequately address

why it ends prematurely. 

In his declaration, Paul Jurusov states that he "was told to transfer the video from before the start of

the first event to the end of the first event and from before the start of the second event to the end of the

second event." Jurusov Decl. ¶ 7. He further states that to the best of his knowledge, he transferred the

entire incident as recorded by the camera. Id. This provides no explanation as to why the recording ends

prematurely. In its opposition, Signature argues that nothing that could have occurred after the end of the

recording changes the fact that the video records an altercation between Mr. Jones and Mr. Vaden. Again,

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 7 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

this argument does not address why the recording ends prematurely. At the December 15 hearing, counsel

for Signature stated that the recording ends prematurely because the technology Mr. Jurusov used to

download the surveillance video did not allow enough recording time to record the entire altercation as one

recorded segment. Regardless, whether Signature purposefully or negligently failed to record the end of the

altercation, "the risk that the evidence would have been detrimental rather than favorable should fall on the

party responsible for its loss." Id. at 109. Thus, the Court finds that Signature acted, at a minimum, in a

negligent manner in failing to record the end of the altercation. Accordingly, Signature acted with a culpable

state of mind.

c. whether the surveillance video is relevant

Spoliation also requires awareness that the records destroyed were potentially relevant to litigation. 

Absent such awareness, there is no spoliation. U.S. v. Kitsap Physicians Service, 314 F.3d 995, 1001

(9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs argue that the surveillance recordings are relevant to the present litigation

because Mr. Jones alleges that he was terminated by Signature because of his race and because he had

previously complained about discrimination. The recordings, Plaintiffs contend, would establish the true

events which took place on July 15, including the parties' demeanor and behavior before and after the

altercation in question, and would support their assertion that Signature did not possess a legitimate basis

for terminating Mr. Jones.

In response, Signature argues that Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence that any recording

other than what has been preserved on the compact discs exists and would have shown something different

than what has been maintained on the compact discs. Signature further argues that no additional recordings

would alter the conclusion that Mr. Jones got into an argument with Mr. Vaden.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds that the destroyed portion of the surveillance

video is relevant. Any surveillance recordings of the July 15 altercation would be relevant to the present

litigation in that it would tend to show whether Signature possessed a legitimate basis for terminating Mr.

Jones for his involvement in the July 15 incident. However, Plaintiffs do not present any evidence

establishing that relevant evidence, with the exception of the recording that ends prematurely, has been

destroyed. In fact, Plaintiffs concede that they cannot disprove Signature's sworn statements that only one

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 8 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 9

camera captured relevant evidence from July 15, 2004. Thus, the only relevant evidence which Plaintiffs

have shown was destroyed is the portion of the July 15 video that ends prematurely. 

Given that it is undisputed that an altercation took place between Mr. Jones and Mr. Vaden, it is

unclear how the additional recording would alter this conclusion. For purposes of relevance, however,

courts must take care not to "hold[ ] the prejudiced party to too strict a standard of proof regarding the

likely contents of the destroyed [or unavailable] evidence," because doing so "would subvert the ...

purposes of the adverse inference, and would allow parties who have ... destroyed evidence to profit from

that destruction." Kronisch, 150 F.3d at 128; Byrnie, 243 F.3d at 110. Accordingly, the Court finds that

the portion of the video that ends prematurely is relevant.

2. Whether sanctions are appropriate in this matter

Once a court finds that evidence has been destroyed, it must determine whether sanctions are

appropriate. Unigard, 982 F.2d at 368. The Court shall consider the Schmid factors in making this

determination.

a. degree of Signature's fault

Although Signature destroyed a portion of the surveillance recording, it does not appear to have

acted willfully. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have not shown that Signature intentionally destroyed the

recording. In his declaration, Paul Jurusov states that he "was told to transfer the video from before the

start of the first event to the end of the first event and from before the start of the second event to the end of

the second event." Jurusov Decl. ¶ 7. He further states that to the best of his knowledge, he transferred

the entire incident as recorded by the camera. Id. Thus, the most the Court can find is that Signature acted

negligently in failing to preserve the end of the recorded portion of the altercation.

Several cases hold a sanction for failure to preserve evidence is appropriate "only when a party has

consciously disregarded its obligation to do so." Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 62

F.3d 1469, 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see also Bashir v. Amtrak, 119 F.3d 929, 931 (11th Cir. 1997)

(adverse inference drawn from party's failure to preserve evidence only when such failure is predicated on

bad faith); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 F.3d 801, 804 (6th Cir. 1999)

(evidence exclusion proper only if party or its expert intentionally altered or destroyed evidence before

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 9 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 10

opposing party had opportunity to examine it). 

Here, Signature maintains that it retained an accurate copy of the video of the two events from the

only camera that recorded the incident, with the exception of the end of the altercation, and that it believed

it had fully captured the two events. No one that has reviewed the video on the compact discs believes

they are inaccurate recordings. Thus, because the Court cannot find that Signature consciously disregarded

its obligation to preserve the surveillance recording, this factor weighs in favor of denying Plaintiff's motion

for sanctions.

b. degree of prejudice suffered by Plaintiffs

Next, the Court must consider the degree of prejudice suffered by Plaintiffs, who argue that they

are at a severe disadvantage in that they can no longer conclusively affirm Mr. Vaden's outrageous behavior

on July 15. Plaintiffs contend that a critical piece of evidence favorable to them is now gone, thereby

compromising their ability to have a fair hearing on this evidentiary issue. 

In response, Signature argues that the lost video does not in any way preclude Plaintiffs from

establishing their case. Because the lost video is not the foundation for their discrimination claims, Signature

contends that they have failed to meet their burden of proving that they suffered prejudice sufficient to

support a finding of sanctionable spoliation of evidence.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds that both parties have been prejudiced as a

result of the destruction of the surveillance recording. Specifically, Signature argues that it terminated Mr.

Jones' employment for his behavior towards customers, including the altercation with Mr. Vaden. Plaintiffs

argue that Signature's stated reason is pretextual and that Mr. Jones was terminated for discriminatory

reasons. Although it is undisputed that an altercation occurred, the full nature of that altercation is not

captured by the retained surveillance footage. While the destroyed recording may have provided more

insight into this issue, it is now left to the trier of fact, based on the remaining evidence, to determine the

reason Signature terminated Mr. Jones' employment.

The Court must now determine the degree of prejudice suffered by Plaintiffs. "The test for

prejudice is whether there is a reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence, that access to the

evidence which was destroyed or altered, and which was not otherwise obtainable, would produce

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 10 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 11

evidence favorable to the objecting party." Nationwide, 174 F.3d at 804. Plaintiffs have not satisfied

these requirements for purposes of their motion.

First, Plaintiffs have not produced actual evidence of the prejudice they claim. 

The moving party usually sets forth some type of extrinsic evidence as to

the content of the missing materials which demonstrates the extent to which

such materials would have been harmful to the spoliator. This

corroboration is especially important where the destruction is merely

negligent since there is no bad faith in such cases from which to infer the

evidence would have been detrimental to the spoliator.

Skeete v. McKinsey & Co., Inc., 1993 WL 256659 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). Thus, where the moving

party fails "to provide any extrinsic evidence that the subject matter of the lost or destroyed materials would

have been unfavorable to [the spoliator] or would have been relevant to the issues of this lawsuit," spoliation

sanctions are not warranted because the moving party relies on "pure speculation as to the content of these

materials." Id. Here, Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that the retained video footage of the

altercation is inaccurate. Further, Plaintiffs have not shown the unretained portion would be unfavorable to

Signature. The footage shows that an altercation occurred between Mr. Jones and Mr. Vaden, which is the

stated reason why Signature terminated Mr. Jones. At the December 15 hearing, Signature's counsel

stated that the decision to terminate Mr. Jones was made based on Mr. Jones' past conduct and the

altercation as seen on the remaining video footage. The unretained portion of the recording would not

change the fact that it was not used in making the termination decision.

Second, Plaintiffs have other evidence available. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submitted the

statements of two witnesses, Sean Gear and Robert Jones. Both of these witnesses claim that they saw

"the entire incident." Cikes Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A at ¶7 and Ex. B at ¶6. Sean Gear states that Bobby Jones and

Mr. Vaden "engaged in a verbal argument," while Robert Jones describes it as an "argument." Id., Ex. A

¶6 and Ex. B at ¶5. Sean Gear further estimated that the "altercation" between Bobby Jones and Mr.

Vaden that "lasted approximately one to two minutes, following which both parties went their separate

ways." Id., ¶2, Ex. A at ¶6. Likewise, Robert Jones reported that"[a]fter a minute or two, the driver and

Bobby Jones went their separate ways." Id., ¶2, Ex. B at ¶5. These statements confirm that the existing

video is accurate. 

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 11 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 12

Plaintiffs also have the written statement provided by plaintiff Bobby Jones during Signature's initial

investigation of the matter (Decl. of Steve True, Ex. C), and his sworn deposition testimony. Supp. Decl.

of Robert Wilger, Ex. 1. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish through "concrete" evidence that the

missing video would have favored their case and that Signature destroyed the records because the evidence

would have been harmful to it. Thus, any prejudice suffered by Plaintiffs does not rise to the level of

excluding Signature's legitimate non-discriminatory defense.

c. whether a lesser sanction would avoid substantial unfairness to Signature

Based on this analysis, Plaintiffs' request for an issues sanction finding that Signature did not have

good cause to terminate Mr. Jones is overreaching and potentially contrary to the evidence. The trier of

fact should be permitted to make the final determination as to whether Signature terminated Mr. Jones for

discriminatory or legitimate reasons.

Next, the Court must consider whether a lesser sanction is appropriate. Given that Plaintiffs have

not shown that Signature engaged in egregious conduct, any lesser sanction would also be inappropriate. 

Further, the facts that Signature took efforts to maintain the relevant video and has never attempted to

mislead Plaintiffs' attorneys or the Court about its status show that Signature has not engaged in the

sanctionable spoliation of evidence. See McGinnity v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 183 F.R.D. 58,

63-64 (D. Conn. 1998) (finding sanctions inappropriate where the defendant recorded over taped radio

communications as part of its normal business practices and never attempted to mislead plaintiff's counsel or

the court about the erased tape recording).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. As

Plaintiffs' motion was not brought for frivolous or vexatious reasons, the Court also DENIES Signature's

request for monetary sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 12 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 13

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 99 Filed 12/20/05 Page 13 of 13