Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02074-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CONSTANCE WADDLE, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-02074 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING 

DEFENDANTS TO PRESERVE RECORDS

[ECF No. 17]

Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 26, 2012.

1

 He names 

Correctional Lieutenant Constance Waddle and Correctional Officer E. Castellanos as 

Defendants.

On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing Defendants and the 

CDCR to preserve all records of all the investigations into the June 8, 2010, assault which is the 

subject of this litigation. 

“Litigants owe an uncompromising duty to preserve what they know or reasonably 

should know will be relevant evidence in a pending lawsuit, or one in the offing . . . .” Judge 

William W. Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 11:125 (2004) (internal 

 

1 On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 21 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

quotations and citations omitted). Further, the destruction of evidence is sanctionable conduct. 

Given the duty to preserve evidence and the absence of any authority set forth by Plaintiff in his 

motion, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The court declines to presume that Defendants will destroy 

evidence and Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the records and evidence are in danger of 

being destroyed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion seeking a court order prohibiting Defendants from 

destroying evidence, filed July 24, 2014, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02074-DAD-GSA Document 21 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2