UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LARRY BETHEL, : 

 : 

Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 v. : Civil Action No.: 20-1940 (RC)

 : 

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, et al, : Re Document No.: 72 

 : 

Defendants. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DENYING DEFENDANTS HOME DEPOT AND BENTON’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Larry Bethel bought an air conditioner at a Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (“Home 

Depot”) store, but a store employee, Nelson Benton, incorrectly believed he stole the air 

conditioner and reported a theft to Officer Jose Rodriguez. After this report, Officer Rodriguez 

obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Bethel, and although Mr. Bethel was ultimately not arrested, 

he endured psychological distress in anticipation of a possible arrest. Mr. Bethel then brought 

this action against Home Depot and Mr. Benton, plus Officer Rodriguez and the District of 

Columbia (together, the “District Defendants”).1 Home Depot and Mr. Benton filed a motion for 

summary judgment, and separately, the District Defendants also filed a motion for summary 

judgment. The Court granted in part and denied in part each motion, and it allowed Mr. Bethel’s 

false arrest and defamation claims against the District Defendants, Home Depot, and Mr. Benton 

to go forward. 

1

 The claims against Home Depot and District of Columbia are based on respondeat 

superior liability. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 135, 152, 181–85, ECF No 11-2. 
2 

Now, Home Depot and Mr. Benton move for the Court to reconsider its decision, 

contending that the Court failed to review video that supports their motion for summary 

judgment on all claims. Mr. Bethel opposes the motion, and the District Defendants have not 

made any filings. The Court has now reviewed the video evidence, which was not previously 

provided, and finds that the videos are relevant but does not change its conclusions. Thus, as 

explained further below, Home Depot and Mr. Benton’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 

II. BACKGROUND

1. September 30, 2023 Memorandum Opinion 

On September 30, 2023, the Court issued a memorandum opinion (“Sep. 30, 2023 

Opinion”) in this action. See Bethel v. Rodriguez, No. 20-cv-1940, 2023 WL 6388851 (D.D.C. 

Sept. 30, 2023). There, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions for summary 

judgment by (1) Home Depot and Mr. Benton and (2) the District Defendants.2

 Id. at *17. The 

Court granted summary judgment against Mr. Bethel on his claims for malicious prosecution, 

assault, negligence, and for punitive damages as a cause of action. Id. at *12–13, *17. However, 

the Court also allowed Mr. Bethel’s claims for false arrest and defamation against Mr. Benton, 

Home Depot, and the District Defendants to go forward. Id. at *10–11, *15–16. This result 

stemmed from a “critical factual dispute [that] prevented the Court from reaching a definitive 

conclusion” about the events at issue. Id. at *8. Faced with competing testimony from Mr. 

Bethel versus Mr. Benton and Officer Rodriguez, the Court concluded it was appropriate to let a 

jury decide which side was more credible. Id. at *10–11, *15–16. 

2

 Home Depot and Mr. Benton also moved to dismiss in part for failure to state a claim 

along with their motion for summary judgment, but the Court determined that this motion 

improper and proceeded fully at the summary judgment stage. Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851 at *5. 
3 

On October 25, 2023, Home Depot and Mr. Benton moved for reconsideration, arguing 

that the Court failed to consider probative video evidence and that the Court should have granted 

summary judgment in their favor on the false arrest and defamation counts. See Mem. Supp. 

Defs. Home Depot and Benton Mot. Reconsider (“Mot. Reconsider”), ECF No. 72. They 

delivered three video exhibits to the Court on a USB drive alongside their motion for 

reconsideration. See Defs. Home Depot and Benton Notice of Filing, ECF No. 73. Mr. Bethel 

opposes the motion and does not raise any issues of his own with respect to the Sep. 30, 2023 

Opinion. See Pl. Opp’n Defs. Home Depot and Benton Mot. Reconsider (“Pl. Opp’n”), ECF No. 

74. Home Depot and Mr. Benton did not file a reply. The District Defendants have not made 

any filings. 

2. The Events of July 19, 2019 and the Video Evidence 

Because the video evidence only pertains to a factual dispute over what happened when 

Mr. Bethel went to a Home Depot store on July 19, 2019, this discussion of the facts is limited to 

those events. The Court borrows in part from the Sep. 30, 2023 Opinion, and refers the reader 

there for a full discussion of the factual background. See Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851 at *1–4. 

 On July 19, 2019, Mr. Bethel went to Home Depot at approximately 9:30 a.m. District 

Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts (“Dist. Defs. SOMF”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 62-1; Pl.’s Dep. 

Transcript (“Pl. Dep. Tr.”) 14:15, ECF No. 62-2. Mr. Bethel sought to buy an air conditioner 

because of recent hot weather. Dist. Defs. SOMF ¶ 2; Pl. Dep. Tr. at 14:6–16. He found an air 

conditioner he liked and purchased it. Dist. Defs. SOMF ¶ 2; Pl. Dep. Tr. at 14:6–15:13. 

According to Mr. Bethel, while he was still at the cashier station, he noticed the box was 

damaged, and the cashier told him to exchange it for another one. Pl. Dep. Tr. at 15:2–15:13. 
4 

Mr. Bethel went back and found a replacement air conditioner. See id. at 15:9–15:13, 30:20–

31:7. 

Here, the parties diverge on what happened next. Mr. Bethel testified that he took the 

replacement air conditioner “back to the register to let [the cashier] know that [he] had 

exchanged it and she said, okay, you’re good.” Pl. Dep. Tr. at 110:9–15. He elaborated that she 

“looked at” and “glanced at” the air conditioner box to make sure it was the same unit. Id. at 

111:14–112:3. Mr. Bethel claimed that he “put [the box]” on the counter so that [the cashier] 

could see it was the [same] air conditioner I guess.” Id. at 112:15–16. In short, Mr. Bethel

agreed with the following summary: 

Q: You put the damaged unit on the shelf and then you took an 

undamaged unit, put it back in the cart, took it back over to the cashier, 

placed it on the counter, allowed her to view it, she said you’re good, you 

put it back in the cart and left the store, is that correct? 

A: Yes, I did. 

Q: Was any part of what I restated in correct?

A: That’s the way I explained it to you. 

Id. at 113:2–11. Mr. Bethel then left Home Depot. Id. at 14:6–15:13. 

Mr. Benton, a member of Home Depot’s asset protection staff at work that day, had a 

sharply different recollection of events. See Home Depot and Benton Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. 

J. & Mot. Dismiss (“Home Depot & Benton Mem.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 60-13

; see also Benton Dep. 

Transcript (“Benton Dep. Tr.”) at 27:12–15, ECF No. 62-3. According to Mr. Benton, he was 

watching Mr. Bethel from the sales floor, and he saw him place an air conditioner in his 

shopping cart and leave the store without going to the cashier. Benton Dep. Tr. at 29:7–19; 

3

 Home Depot and Mr. Benton included a statement of facts as part of the memorandum 

supporting their motion for summary judgment. When the Court uses the paragraph symbol, ¶, 

in citing to Mr. Benton and Home Depot’s memorandum, it is referring to the numbered 

paragraphs starting on the fourth page of the memorandum. In addition, because the 

memorandum is not paginated, the Court uses the page numbering as listed by ECF. 
5 

31:18–32:7, 59:18–60:2. When asked at his deposition if he conducted any investigation to 

determine if Mr. Bethel had paid for the air conditioner and whether he had a receipt, Mr. Benton 

stated that “[a]t the time I observed Mr. Bethel, he did not pass or go to a cashier.” Id. at 59:18–

60:2. 

Mr. Benton followed Mr. Bethel as he left the store and saw him put the air conditioner in 

a car. Id. at 32:13–18; 41:8–15. Mr. Benton recorded the license plate number of the car. Id. at 

32:13–18. Mr. Benton did not approach or speak to Mr. Bethel at any point. Id. at 106:22–

109:3. Mr. Benton then returned inside Home Depot and analyzed a video clip of Mr. Bethel 

inside the store, which Mr. Benton testified showed that Mr. Bethel took an air conditioner and 

left the store without paying for it. Id. at 31:1–6; 32:13–18; 51:20–52:2; 101:4–15. Mr. Benton 

testified that he did not speak to any cashiers about the possible theft, and that his practice is to 

not conduct such interviews, because it is a “conflict.” Id. at 112:19–113:10; see also id. at 

60:10–11 (“We do not speak to store associates about any cases or thefts or customers of that 

nature.”). 

Based on the video clip and his first-hand observation, Mr. Benton testified that he 

concluded that Mr. Bethel stole the air conditioner, and he wrote an incident report. Id. at 32:13–

18, 45:1–9; 46:9–12; 47:6–14. He contacted Officer Jose Rodriguez, a member of the 

Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”), and shared the incident report and video clip with 

him.4

 Id. at 43:21–44:1, 45:1–9; 50:14–19; 51:20–52:2; 53:6–11; see also Rodriguez Dep. 

4

 Officer Rodriguez also worked as a part-time contractor for Home Depot to “keep 

customers safe” and prevent theft. Rodriguez Dep. Tr. at 50:5–17, 51:18–52:2. When working 

at Home Depot, he was still on duty as a sworn MPD officer. Id. at 50:18–21. Officer 

Rodriguez and Mr. Benton knew each other through their work at Home Depot. See id. at 50:5–

7; Benton Dep. Tr. 26:18–27:1. Officer Rodriguez was not a subordinate to Mr. Benton and did 

not report to him. Benton Dep. Tr. 102:7–9. Neither Officer Rodriguez nor Mr. Benton could 
6 

Transcript (“Rodriguez Dep. Tr.”) at 104:13–105:16, ECF No. 63-1. According to Officer 

Rodriguez, he reviewed the incident report and video clip, and believed that the video 

corroborated Mr. Benton’s version of events. Rodriguez Dep. Tr. at 71:7–73:12; 105:14–16, 

105:17–106:1. Officer Rodriguez testified that Mr. Bethel “never went to a cashier.” Id. at 

106:22–107:4. Officer Rodriguez also testified that at this point he determined there was 

probable cause to seek an arrest warrant. Id. at 105:17–106:1. 

The following day, July 20, 2019, Officer Rodriguez completed a police report that 

repeated the information he received from Mr. Benton; the report mentioned that the event was 

captured on video. See Rodriguez Police Rep., Dist. Defs. Mem. Ex. 4, ECF No. 62-4. On 

August 16, 2019, Rodriguez’s Affidavit in Support of an Arrest Warrant was approved by the 

Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case. Rodriguez Aff. in Supp. of an Arrest 

Warrant, Dist. Defs. Mem. Ex. 5, ECF No. 62-5; Dist. Defs. SOMF ¶ 19. The affidavit recounts 

Mr. Benton’s description of events but does not mention that a video clip exists or that Officer 

Rodriguez watched it. See Rodriguez Aff.; see also Rodriguez Dep. Tr. 71:10–73:15. Also on 

August 16, 2019, Officer Rodriguez swore out a complaint against Mr. Bethel for second-degree 

theft, in violation of D.C. Code 22, §§ 3211, 3212(b). See Rodriguez Compl. and Arrest 

Warrant, Dist. Defs. Mem. Ex. 6, ECF No. 62-6; Dist. Defs. SOMF ¶ 19. A warrant for the 

arrest of Mr. Bethel was issued on August 16, 2019. Dist. Defs. SOMF ¶ 20. Mr. Benton and 

Officer Rodriguez later discovered an additional video that showed Mr. Bethel paying for an air 

conditioner, before he swapped it for the undamaged unit, and withdrew the warrant for his 

arrest. Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *3–4. Unfortunately, as explained in the Court’s prior 

recall if Officer Rodriguez was working at Home Depot on July 19, 2019. See id. at 27:17–20; 

Rodriguez Dep. Tr. 61:6–8. 
7 

opinion, this discovery came only after Mr. Bethel had been informed that there was a warrant 

for his arrest. See id.

Notably, as the current motion makes clear, there are three videos of what happened on 

July 19, 2019, after Mr. Bethel placed the replacement air conditioner into his cart. See Home 

Depot & Benton Mem., Ex. G at 28:08–30:04; Home Depot & Benton Mem., Ex. H at 0:40–

1:06; Home Depot & Benton Mem., Ex. I at 0:00–1:13.5

 The videos are poor quality and come 

from three different fish-eye lens cameras mounted on the store’s ceiling, covering slightly 

different areas of the store although with overlap. The most helpful video is Ex. I, so the Court 

will rely on that video, with the caveat that the other two videos are similar. The video shows 

Mr. Bethel (wearing a purple shirt) with a shopping cart that contains the replacement air 

conditioner, and he pauses for about a minute inspecting his cart before moving forward. See 

Ex. I at 0:00–1:13. He approaches a cashier (who is wearing a pink hat) standing near a point-ofsale station and speaks to her. Id. He does not remove the air conditioner from his cart. Id. The 

cashier appears to respond to him. Id. The interaction lasts around 5 seconds. Id. Despite this 

short timeframe, and although the videos are blurry, Mr. Bethel appears calm during the 

interaction and does not seem to be in a rush. Id. After this brief exchange, Mr. Bethel turns 

away from the cashier and does not exit the store through the doors closest to him, instead taking 

a right turn in a direction parallel to the exit until he leaves the view of the camera. Id.

The video evidence departs from the testimony offered by all three relevant individuals. 

It is inconsistent with Mr. Benton’s testimony, who said that he watched Mr. Bethel in person 

and on video, and saw Mr. Bethel place an air conditioner in his cart and leave the store without 

5 The Court cites these videos as they are referenced, briefly, in Home Depot and Mr. 

Benton’s motion for summary judgment. As explained elsewhere in this opinion, these exhibits 

had not been presented to the Court when it decided the motion. 
8 

passing or going to a cashier. Benton Dep. Tr. 59:18–60:2. It also contradicts Officer 

Rodriguez’s testimony, who said he watched a video that corroborated Mr. Bethel’s version of 

events, and that Mr. Bethel did not go to a cashier. Rodriguez Dep. Tr. 106:22–107:4. Finally, 

the video evidence does not match Mr. Bethel’s testimony: he did not remove the air conditioner 

from his cart for the cashier to inspect, and the interaction was much shorter than what he 

described at his deposition. Pl. Dep. Tr. 113:2–11. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs reconsideration of orders that do not 

constitute final judgments in a case.” Singh v. George Wash. Univ., 383 F. Supp. 2d 99, 101 

(D.D.C. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 539 (D.D.C. 2005)). Rule 54(b) 

provides that any order or decision that does not constitute a final judgment “may be revised at 

any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and 

liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A court has “inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory 

order ‘as justice requires.’” Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217, 

227 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Greene v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 764 F.2d 19, 22–23 

(1st Cir. 1985)). In determining whether reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 54(b), courts 

may consider “whether the court ‘patently’ misunderstood the parties, made a decision beyond 

the adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to consider controlling decisions or 

data, or whether a controlling or significant change in the law occurred.” In Defense of Animals 

v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, 543 F. Supp. 2d 70, 75 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Singh v. George Wash. 

Univ., 383 F. Supp. 2d 99, 101 (D.D.C. 2005)). “Errors of apprehension may include a Court’s 

failure to consider ‘controlling decisions or data that might reasonably be expected to alter the 
9 

conclusion reached by the court.’” Singh, 383 F. Supp. 2d at 101 (quoting Shrader v. CSX 

Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). 

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must grant summary 

judgment if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if 

it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is “genuine” if there is enough evidence for a 

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-movant. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 

(2007). The inquiry under Rule 56 is guided by “whether the evidence presents a sufficient 

disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must 

prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251–52. 

One of the principal purposes of summary judgment is to determine whether there is a 

genuine need for trial by disposing of factually unsupported claims or defenses. See Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). The movant bears the initial burden of 

identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material 

fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. In response, the non-movant must 

point to specific facts in the record that reveal a genuine issue that is suitable for trial. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. “[T]he non-movant ‘may not rest upon mere 

allegation or denials . . . ’ but must [instead] present ‘affirmative evidence’ showing a genuine 

issue for trial.” Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting 

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256). In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must 

“eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Czekalski v. Peters, 475 
10 

F.3d 360, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Inferences must be analyzed in the light most favorable to the 

non-movant. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. But conclusory assertions offered without any 

evidentiary support do not establish a genuine issue for trial. See Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 

671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

Finally, and of particular relevance here, “in a case where the court has the benefit of 

video evidence, the Supreme Court has stated that courts deciding summary judgment motions 

should ‘view[] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape[.]’” Armbruster v. Frost, 962 F. 

Supp. 2d 105, 110 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Scott, 550 U.S. at 381). 

IV. ANALYSIS 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that rather than addressing the video evidence, Mr. 

Bethel’s opposition brief mainly contends that the Court’s Sep. 30, 2023 Opinion (and order) 

was a “final judgment” and that the motion for reconsideration is not properly brought under 

Rule 54(b). Pl. Opp’n at 6–7. All that the Court has to say about this argument is that it is

evidently incorrect: the Sep. 30, 2023 Opinion “adjudicate[d] fewer than all the claims” put forth 

by Mr. Bethel and thus “is subject to revision at any time” under Rule 54(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b). 

The Court also observes that much of the Sep. 30, 2023 Opinion is not at issue in the 

current motion for reconsideration. Thus, the Court will solely discuss whether the video 

evidence alters its assessment of Mr. Bethel’s surviving claims for false arrest and defamation

Home Depot and Mr. Benton are correct that the store video is relevant to the Court’s 

decision on those claims. It should have been provided to the Court previously, but was not, and 

it was mentioned only in passing in the summary judgment briefing. Now that the videos are

available, the Court sees that they portray events that depart from the recollection of all relevant 
11 

individuals in this litigation. Given that inconsistency, the Court continues to believe that a 

factual issue remains for trial, and it will deny the motion for reconsideration. 

A. The Court Did Not Receive the Videos of Mr. Bethel at Home Depot, and they are 

Relevant

The Court’s summary judgment opinion stated that “[u]nfortunately, the video [of Mr. 

Bethel at Home Depot] is not part of the factual record, and Mr. Benton testified that he did not 

know where the video is today.” Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *2 n.3 (citing Benton Dep. Tr. 

32:19–22). Indeed, the Court never received any such videos. 

According to counsel for Home Depot and Mr. Benton, they did not produce the videos 

in an effort to comply with Local Civil Rule 5.4(e)(1). Mot. Reconsider at 2. That rule provides 

in part that 

Any document, exhibit, or attachment, including sealed material, that (A) is not in 

a format that readily permits electronic filing, such as a map, chart, or DVD, or 

(B) is illegible when scanned into electronic format, is to be maintained in the 

possession of the attorney or pro se party responsible for the filing. Such a filing 

shall be made available for a party or the Court and must be identified in a Notice 

of Filing filed with the Court. A document or item filed pursuant to this 

subsection shall be served, if it is necessary to serve it, by mail or by hand 

delivery, unless the parties have otherwise agreed. 

LCvR 5.4(e)(1). Home Depot and Mr. Benton’s counsel further explain that

In preparation of the filing and to gain clarity as to when Defendants should file a 

Notice of Filing and the CCTV with the Court, undersigned counsel’s office 

contacted the Clerk of the Court on December 12, 2022, and was advised that the 

CCTV video exhibits should not be submitted and should be held until requested 

by the Judge. Given the instruction from the Clerk of the Court, Defendants did 

not file the Notice of Filing or produce the CCTV video exhibits. 

Mot. Reconsider at 2. Although the Court does not call into question the accuracy of these 

statements, it is not familiar with the guidance purportedly provided by the Clerk of the Court. 

In analogous cases, parties regularly file a Notice of Filing along with their motions for summary 

judgment and inquire to the Court’s chambers about the appropriate format for providing video 
12 

exhibits. In fact, in this very case, the District Defendants provided a notice on the docket that 

“[t]he BWC video will be submitted directly to the Court with the courtesy copy of the District 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” and sent that video to the Court, which the Court 

then reviewed and described in the summary judgment opinion. District Defs.’ Mot. Summ. 

Judgment, Ex. 7, ECF No. 62-7; see Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *3. 

Still, Home Depot and Mr. Benton’s counsel state that their “motion for summary 

judgment “included a footnote advising that . . . the video exhibits would be produced upon 

request.” Mot. Reconsider at 2. Again, although that footnote stated that “[p]ursuant to the local 

rules, all physical video exhibits will be produced to the court upon request,” Home Depot and 

Benton Mem. at 3 n.1, the Local Rules do not compel such an approach and the Court believes 

that there must have been a misunderstanding or a mistake at some point in counsel’s 

consultation with the Clerk of the Court. Regardless, it is true that “[t]he video exhibits were 

never requested and thus never produced by Defendants.” Mot. Reconsider at 2. 

In candor, the Court did not recognize that it should request the videos because the parties

said virtually nothing about them. Home Depot and Mr. Benton cite the videos just twice, in two 

consecutive paragraphs of their statement of undisputed material facts. Home Depot & Benton 

Mem. ¶¶ 8–9. The videos are not described in the text and are included only as additional 

citations, after citations to Mr. Benton’s deposition transcript. The videos are never mentioned 

anywhere else in the memorandum supporting their motion for summary judgment, and never 

mentioned in their reply brief. That omission is odd given that Home Depot and Mr. Benton 

recognized elsewhere the importance of video that conflicts with deposition testimony. See

Home Depot & Benton Reply Pl. Opp’n at 3, ECF No. 68 (noting that “[s]ignificantly, the entire 

interaction with Mr. Spann and the officers was captured by video” and citing to that video as a 
13 

rebuttal to Mr. Bethel’s testimony). Even stranger is that the District Defendants and Mr. Bethel 

also never discussed the Home Depot videos anywhere in their summary judgment filings. Mr. 

Bethel only alluded to the videos when he repeated the two paragraphs where Home Depot and 

Mr. Benton cite the videos, saying only that he “dispute[d]” the contents of those paragraphs. Pl. 

Opp’n Home Depot & Benton at 26. The Court is perplexed that all parties saw fit to disregard

video evidence about what happened in favor of dueling deposition testimony, particularly 

because at the summary judgment stage, the Court must “eschew making credibility 

determinations,” Czekalski, 475 F.3d at 363, and should “view[] the facts in the light depicted by 

the videotape,” Scott, 550 U.S. at 381. 

In summary, the videos are “data that might reasonably be expected to alter the 

conclusion reached by the court.” Singh, 383 F. Supp. 2d at 101 (quoting Shrader v. CSX 

Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). Thus, the Court will revisit its analysis with a 

better understanding of the events at issue. 

B. Mr. Bethel’s False Arrest Claims 

Because the Court has already extensively discussed the standard for false arrest, it will 

not repeat that framework. Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *6–10. It also will not re-evaluate its 

conclusion that there was a material factual dispute whether Mr. Bethel was eventually arrested

when he went to a police station. Id. at *9–11. Instead, the Court focuses on the proposition that 

Home Depot and Mr. Benton could be liable for any such arrest because someone “who 

knowingly gives false information to a police officer necessarily interferes with the intelligent 

exercise of the officer’s independent judgment and discretion and thereby becomes liable for a 

false arrest that later occurs.” Id. at *8 (quoting Amobi v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corr., 

755 F.3d 980, 991 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
14 

In its Sep. 30, 2023 Opinion, the Court observed that Mr. Benton and Mr. Bethel offered 

sharply different accounts of what transpired at the Home Depot: 

one critical factual dispute prevents the Court from reaching a definitive 

conclusion. Mr. Bethel contends that rather than leaving the store without going 

to a cashier, he returned to the same cashier that sold him the initial unit, and the 

cashier confirmed that Mr. Bethel was free to leave with the substituted and 

undamaged unit. See Pl. Dep. Tr. at 30:20–31:7, 111:2–16, 112:17–113:11. This 

narrative is fundamentally incompatible with Mr. Benton’s testimony that he 

watched Mr. Bethel place an air conditioner into his cart and leave the store 

without stopping by any points of sale or speaking to a cashier. See Benton Dep. 

Tr. at 29:7–19; 31:18–32:4, 59:18–60:2. Either Mr. Bethel picked up an air 

conditioner and headed directly out of the store, or he returned to a cashier to 

confirm that he was merely swapping out a purchased product. To take Mr. 

Bethel’s testimony as true—and the Court must construe the evidence favorably 

against Mr. Bethel, as non-movant—would indicate that Mr. Benton was 

untruthful or recklessly incorrect about Mr. Bethel’s actions in his report and his 

conversation with Officer Rodriguez. Mistakes happen, but if Mr. Bethel stopped 

and spoke with a cashier, it would be far beyond an ordinary mistake for Mr. 

Benton to watch Mr. Bethel in real-time and on a video but still somehow tell 

Officer Rodriguez that Mr. Bethel picked up an air conditioner and quickly left 

the store without passing any registers. 

Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *8. With the benefit of the video evidence, the Court concludes 

that Mr. Benton’s testimony does not align with actual events. Mr. Bethel did stop by a cashier, 

and additionally, the video evidence does not capture him leaving the store or even clearly 

heading toward an exit. See Ex. I at 0:00–1:13. To be sure, Mr. Bethel’s testimony that he 

removed the air conditioner from his cart for the cashier to examine was also inaccurate. See id. 

Moreover, Mr. Bethel’s interaction with the cashier was far too brief for him to have paid at that 

moment, which supports Mr. Benton’s conclusions. See id. The truth falls somewhere between 

Mr. Bethel and Mr. Benton’s tellings. Even with the video evidence, there is still uncertainty: 

the Court does not know what Mr. Bethel and the cashier said to each other. 

 In highlighting why the course of events is important to the outcome of the motion, the 

Court previously explained that 
15 

It is material whether Mr. Bethel left the store immediately or stopped to speak 

with a cashier. In the first scenario, it would be plausible to assume Mr. Bethel 

stole the air conditioner. The second scenario, by contrast, would lead to other 

questions about what Mr. Bethel said to the cashier and why the cashier allowed 

him to proceed out of the store without making an objection. Moreover, while in 

the first situation there would be no cashier to speak with at all, the second 

situation naturally invites at least a brief inquiry with the cashier about what 

occurred. Although Mr. Benton testified that he does not speak to cashiers about 

possible theft, apparently pursuant to a Home Depot policy that addresses 

potential conflict of interest, the Court sees no reason to defer to that practice 

when assessing whether Mr. Benton acted in good faith. See Benton Dep. Tr. at 

60:10–11, 112:19–113:10. Such an approach may well be desirable for Mr. 

Benton, and for the store, while simultaneously falling short of a good faith 

investigation in some cases. The Court recognizes that even if Mr. Benton did 

observe Mr. Bethel stop by a cashier, he could still possibly conclude that Mr. 

Bethel was engaged in theft. But making that determination would be much more 

complicated than if Mr. Bethel made a beeline for the exit; the two situations are 

substantially different and substituting one for another would conceal a material 

fact. 

Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *8. 

Here, the Court observes that Mr. Benton may have still believed Mr. Bethel was 

engaged in theft even though he spoke with a cashier. But the record does not contain sufficient 

evidence why Mr. Benton would have held that belief. Perhaps Mr. Benton believed that the 

cashier was somehow facilitating the theft, or that Mr. Bethel went to the cashier for some 

unknown reason before walking off and then eventually leaving the store without paying. Either 

way, Home Depot apparently did not allow Mr. Benton to talk with cashiers about suspected 

theft. Benton Dep. Tr. 60:10–11. But that purported policy preventing loss prevention 

employees like Mr. Benton from speaking with cashiers does not automatically insulate Home 

Depot and Mr. Benton from liability here. If they wish to rely on this defense, they should 

present a more fulsome presentation of the policy, the justification for it, and an argument for 

why it should not lead to liability if that policy leads to a theft accusation against an innocent 

customer. Given how quickly a conversation with the cashier might have resolved the confusion 

at issue here (or a conversation with Mr. Bethel, for that matter), the Court cannot find that there 
16 

is no material dispute as to whether Mr. Benton acted recklessly when he accused Mr. Bethel of 

theft.

Finally, the Court also notes that Home Depot and Mr. Benton contend that the Sep. 30, 

2023 Opinion “made some slight mischaracterizations regarding the parties’ contentions.” Mot. 

Reconsider at 4. They say Mr. Benton does not contend that Mr. Bethel ‘immediately,’ 

‘quickly,’ and/or made a ‘beeline’ for the exit after placing the AC unit inside his cart.” Id. 

(quoting Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851 at *8). The Court agrees that those quoted words convey an 

element of speed that is not present in Mr. Benton’s deposition testimony or briefing. But they

were intended to describe Mr. Benton’s contention that Mr. Bethel left the store without stopping 

by or going to a cashier, which has now been revealed as inaccurate. 

For similar reasons as with Home Depot and Mr. Benton, the Court will not change its 

conclusions about the false arrest claims against Officer Rodriguez and the District, who could 

possibly be liable for false arrest if Officer Rodriguez’s affidavit for Mr. Bethel’s arrest

“contain[ed] a deliberately or recklessly false statement.” Lane v. District of Columbia, 211 F. 

Supp. 3d 150, 173 (D.D.C. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 

154, 165 (1978)). First of all, the District Defendants have not filed a motion to reconsider. In

any event, because the video evidence is highly relevant to the Court’s previous conclusions, it 

revisits the claims against the District Defendants sua sponte. As the Court observed previously, 

If Officer Rodriguez reviewed the video of Mr. Bethel, as he said he did, see, e.g., 

Rodriguez Dep. Tr. at 71:7–73:12, it is highly doubtful that he could make an 

honest error as to whether Mr. Bethel directly left the store or stopped to present 

the air conditioner to a cashier. Officer Rodriguez’s testimony also relied on the 

fact that it would be hard to discern whether Mr. Bethel purchased the air 

conditioner, testifying that it would have been difficult to identify a record of his 

purchase because Home Depot has over “30 registers in that store” and “you can 

never point to who bought what because [the receipts] have no names.” Id. at

107:11–15. That point would be inapposite if the video showed Mr. Bethel 
17 

stopping at a register before leaving; speaking to the cashier would be a natural 

next step. 

Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *11. The video does show Mr. Bethel stopping at a cashier, but 

for a short time and not at a register. Nevertheless, that directly contradicts Officer Rodriguez’s 

testimony that Mr. Bethel “never went to a cashier” making it unnecessary to interview any 

cashiers. Rodriguez Dep. Tr. at 106:22–107:4. That also raises a problem with Officer 

Rodriguez’s agreement at his deposition that he “review[ed]” “video that corroborated Benton’s 

version of events and what he reported to [Officer Rodriguez].” Id. at 105:14–16. Thus, as with 

Mr. Benton, the video evidence does not change the Court’s conclusion that there remains a 

factual issue for trial. Namely, Officer Rodriguez has not explained why after reviewing the 

video, he would have inaccurately stated that it aligned with Mr. Benton’s report, and why he 

would have found it unnecessary to speak with the cashier. 

 Ultimately, the parties have not presented a sufficient factual basis for the Court to 

resolve these claims at summary judgment. Mr. Benton and Officer Rodriguez’s deposition 

testimony goes to their state of mind on July 19, 2019, but they have not provided evidence or 

arguments to explain their behavior in light of what actually happened. As the Court has already 

stated, the fact that Mr. Benton and Officer Rodriguez later moved to withdraw the arrest warrant 

indicates that the accusation against Mr. Bethel was a mistake. Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *9. 

But on this record, and at this stage of litigation, the Court cannot find that Mr. Benton and 

Officer Rodriguez are entitled to summary judgment on the false arrest claims, and it will not 

reconsider its conclusions in the Sep. 30, 2023 Opinion. 

C. Mr. Bethel’s Defamation Claims 

The Court refrains from repeating the full legal framework of a defamation claim, and 

instead focuses on whether Mr. Benton’s and Officer Rodriguez’s accusations against Mr. Bethel 
18 

fall outside the common interest privilege because they were made “without just cause or excuse, 

with such a conscious indifference or reckless disregard as to [the] results or effect upon the 

rights or feeling of others as to constitute ill will.” Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011, 1025 (D.C. 

1990) (quoting Mosrie v. Trussell, 467 A.2d 475, 477 (D.C. 1983)); see also Hall v. District of 

Columbia, 867 F.3d 138, 149 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (same, in the context of reporting a crime). There 

is no malice if “the defendant has done no more than to fail to undertake a reasonable inquiry as 

to the truth of the assertion prior to publication—conduct amounting to ordinary negligence.” 

Moss, 580 A.2d at 1025; see also Wright v. Eugene & Agnes E. Meyer Found., 68 F.4th 612, 624 

(D.C. Cir. 2023) (“[W]hile a defendant is ‘presumed’ to act with ‘pure motives’ in making a 

conditionally privileged statement, a plaintiff may ‘rebut this presumption’ through a showing of 

malice.”) (quoting Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Holland, 367 A.2d 1311, 1314 (D.C. 1977)). And 

“while the existence of the privilege is a question of law for the court, whether it was abused by 

the defendant, is a question of fact for the jury.” Mosrie, 467 A.2d at 477; see also Oparaugo v. 

Watts, 884 A.2d 63, 82 (D.C. 2005) (“Whether a person acts with malice is ordinarily a question 

of fact for the jury.”). 

As it pertains to Mr. Bethel’s defamation claim against Mr. Benton, the Court’s Sep. 30, 

2023 Opinion observed that 

While there is no discernible motive for why Mr. Benton would intentionally 

make a false accusation against Mr. Bethel—and his later activity in reporting the 

second video to Officer Rodriguez seems to rebut any such possibility—the 

record contains contradictory testimony from Mr. Benton and Mr. Bethel about 

the events on July 19, 2019. To take Mr. Bethel’s narrative as accurate would 

mean to find Mr. Benton’s inaccurate, and vice versa. And if Mr. Benton said 

that Mr. Bethel left the store without paying for the air conditioner, despite 

witnessing him go to a cashier, that statement very well may satisfy the malice 

standard. 

Bethel, 2023 WL 6388851, at *15. Following from the video evidence, it is true that after 

watching Mr. Bethel go up to the cashier, “Mr. Benton failed to intercept Mr. Bethel to ask for a 
19 

receipt and failed to follow up with the cashier about the encounter.” Id. To be sure, the video 

evidence is consistent with the possibility that Mr. Benton’s actions and accusation against Mr. 

Bethel were just an error, and a defendant still falls within the common interest privilege when 

“[he] has done no more than to fail to undertake a reasonable inquiry as to the truth of the 

assertion prior to publication—conduct amounting to ordinary negligence.” Moss, 580 A.2d at 

1025. Indeed, if the record evidence showed Mr. Benton describing events in a manner that 

matched the video and accounted for his behavior in that context, the outcome here may be 

different. As it is, however, Mr. Benton’s testimony is sufficiently inconsistent with the video 

evidence to sustain a factual issue of whether he acted with “conscious indifference or reckless

disregard.” Id.; see Hall, 867 F.3d at 149 (concluding that whether the defendant acted with 

malice should be resolved at trial). Consequently, for similar reasons as with the false arrest 

claims, the Court concludes that it is still not appropriate to enter summary judgment for Home 

Depot and Mr. Benton on the defamation claim.

The Court will also sustain its conclusions regarding the defamation claim against the 

District Defendants. There is still a material issue as to why Officer Rodriguez accused Mr. 

Bethel of theft despite purportedly watching a video that did not match Mr. Benton’s account of 

events. While it may not be difficult for Officer Rodriguez to show that his statements were a 

good faith interpretation of the video evidence and the report from Mr. Benton—given “Officer 

Rodriguez’s efforts to withdraw the warrant after being informed of the second video,” Bethel, 

2023 WL 6388851, at *16—he has not done so yet, especially considering that his deposition 

testimony conflicts with the videos. 

In conclusion, the Court agrees with Home Depot and Mr. Benton that it was appropriate 

to revisit the Sep. 30, 2023 opinion in light of the video evidence. But the agreement ends there. 
20 

With video evidence revealing that Mr. Benton, Officer Rodriguez, and Mr. Bethel all offered 

inaccurate deposition testimony, and the corresponding factual issues that remain, the Court sees 

no reason to change the outcome. Therefore, Home Depot and Mr. Benton’s motion for 

reconsideration is denied. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Home Depot and Nelson Benton’s Motion to

Reconsider (ECF No. 72) is DENIED. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is 

separately and contemporaneously issued. 

Dated: July 19, 2024 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge