## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1644 L ARRY B RACEY, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. J AM ES G RO ND IN, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 10- cv-00287

—Ba rbara B. C rab b , Judge .
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 27, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 15, 2013

B efore F LA UM, S YKES, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudge

. Larr y Bra cey sued sev er alco rr ecti o ns o ffi ce r s f o r the us e o fe xc essive f o r ce unde r the Eighth A m endm ent. Pri son secur i ty cam er as capture d the inci dent, but th e foo tag e was ul ti m ate l y e ra sed wh en th e cam eras r e cord ed over i t abou t three da ys later. Braceyn ow a p peal s fro m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f hi s m oti on requesting r ecr uit m ent o fco unseland i ts d e n i a l o fh i s mo t i o n f o r s p o l i a t i o n s a n c t i o n s . We a ffi r m.2 N o. 12

- 1644

Inm at es m us tf ac e f or ward dur i ng e s c or tt o pr eve nt 1 i nc id en t s ofs pi t t i ng, l ungi ng, an d he ad-but t i ng o fc or re c t i ons officers. I . B a c kg r o und A. F a c t ua l B a c kg r o und B racey, an inm ate atthe W i sco nsi n Se cure Pro gr am Facili ty, su ffered an inj ury in an altercation w ith corre cti ons offi cer s o n J uly29 , 20 05. The co nfr ontati on be gan whe n B ra c ey re fused to exi t hi s ce l l as r eque st ed byco rr ecti ons offi cer s e xecuti ng a ra nd om searc h. Brac ey ultim ately rel en ted w he n m ore officers ar ri ved. They pl aced him i n hand res tr ai nts a nd tr ansfer re d B ra c ey to a h old in g c ell. Br ac ey ’ s an ti cs r es um ed upo n a r r i va l a t the ho l di ng cell, h owever, wh en he prohibi ted the o ffi cer s fro m r em ovin g th e re str ai nt o n hi s l eft hand. ( Offi cer s had alr ea d y re m ov ed h is rig h t h an d f r om th e re st ra in ts .) Aft e r s e v e r a l min u t e s o ft r y i n g to ta l kB r a c e y i n t o c o mpl i an ce , the o ffi ce r s pul l ed Br ac ey ’ s r estrai ne d ha nd th r o u g h th e h o l d i n g c e l l d o o r t o i mmo b i l i z e h i m a nd safel y rem ove d the fi nal r est ra i nt. A s a r esul t, Brace y i nj ur ed hi s f o r ea r m . T he wou nd b l ed, s o i l i ngo ne o ffi c e r ’ s u n i f o r m. A fterco m ple ti on o fthe sea rch and en r oute backto hi s r egul arcel l, Brace y a gain beca m e intra nsi gent, r epea te dl y turninghi s he ad ba ck war d t o war d the o ffi ce r s i n vi o l at i o n o f pr i so n po l i cy . H e then , acco r di ng 1 to d efend an ts, “aggres sively j erked ” his he a d to w ardN o. 12

- 1644 3 O fficer Eric H un t, w ho resp ond ed w ith reaction ary f or ce b y pi nning Braceyag ai nst a nearby door w ay. Brace y s t r u g g l e d , a n d th e o ffi c e r s u l t i ma t e l y b r o u g h th i m d o wn to the fl oo r. A fterr eapply i ng rest ra i nts, o ffi cer s m ove d B ra c ey to a m or e s ec u re p ar t o f th e p ris on . Th i s st ru gg le infl icted a bum p and qu arter-size d bruise on Brac ey’s he a d. Prison se cu rity cam eras w ere p ositi one d to record bo thi nc i den ts
. The se ca m er as o per at e o n a l o o p, c o nt i nuousl y r eco rdi ng i nfo rm ati on unti l thei r m em or y becom es full, wh i ch usual l y t ake s about thre e d ay s. A t that poi nt, the cam er as r eco rd o verthe ol dest m ate ri al

. Pri son pol i cy at the t i m e r equi re d dow n l oad and pres er vati on o fse cu ri tyv i deo o nl y i n c er ta i n s i tu at i o ns . The se s i tu
ations d id n ot includ e an offi cer’s use of re a c tionary force un less the p risoner assau lted sta ff

. Tw o days l ate r on A ugust 1, Bracey fi l ed an inm ate c o mp l a i n tc l a i mi n gH u n t“ v i c i o u s l y a t t a c k e d ” h i m. D uri ng the i nvest i gat i on o fthi s co m pla i nt, Brace y n oti fi ed the pri son that tapes ofthe i nci dent prob ab ly ex ist . B ra c ey su gg es ts h e m en tio n ed th e re c o r d i n g s in h is Au g u s t1 c o mp l a i n t, e x p l a i ni ng th a tth e “ O ffe n d e r C o mpl a i nt i nc l ud e d a l l e g a t i o ns . . . tha t the i nc i de ntwas re c or d ed on th e P ris on ’ s v i d eo rec or d in g s ys te m .” In tr uth, Brace y di d not e xplain the exi ste n c e ofthe tapes until A ugust 3 , wh en the Inm ate Com pla i nt Exam i ner ( “I CE ”) i nt er viewed him and to ok hi s wri tte n sta tem ent. The I CE di sm i sse d the co m pla i nt a nd f or w ar ded Bracey ’ s s tat em ent t o the warden f orpro cess i ng. A l so on Au gust 1, the Se curi ty Dir ecto r Desi gnee re ce i ve d i nc i den t and c o nduc t r epo r ts do cument i ngthe4 N o. 12

- 1644 J ul y 2 9 i nc i den t. Af te r r ev i ewi ngtho se r epo r ts , the desi gnee f ound the sta ff’ s re sponse adequate and d id no t do wnl o ad th e vi deo f o r pr es er va ti o n.
B. Pr ocedura l H i st ory Br a c e y fi l e d thi s l a ws ui ti n 2 0 1 0 a l l e g i ngtha tc o r r e ctio n s o ffice rs u se d e x c e ss ive forc e in vio lat ion of h is E ighth Am endm ent ri ghts. H e al so al l ege d s pol i ati on in defe nd ants’ f ai l ure to dow nl oad and pres er ve the v i deo f r o m th e p r i s o n s e c ur i t y c a me r a s . A ft e r fi l i n gh i s c o mpla i nt, B ra c ey re quested the co urt’ s a ssi sta nce in re crui ti ng co unsel

. 28 U
. S. C. § 1 915( e) ( 1)
. The di str i ct cour t co ncl ud ed Brace y had m ade adequate effo rt s t o fi nd his ow n att orney bu t foun d the allegations su ffi c i e n t l y s t r a i g h t f o r wa r d a n d B r a c e y su ffi c i e n t l y c o mpet en t to ha ndl e th e ca se hi m se l f

. I t den i ed th e m o ti o n. Pro ceedi ng pro s e, Brace y r equeste d i nfo rm ati on re l ating to the destr ucti on o fthe vi deotapes

. A fter pri son offi ci al s r efer re d to cer tain pri son pol i cies in responding to Bracey ’ s inter ro gator i es, Brace y r equeste d th e p o l i c i e s th e ms e l v e s . T h e p r i s o n r e fu s e d , a nd t he di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed B ra ce y ’ s m o ti o n t o c o m pel, c i ting the ne ed to pre ser ve pri son secur i ty. A s t ri alapproa ched, Brace y sought sancti ons f orspol i ati on o fthe vi deo r ec or ding. S hor tl y there after, Brace y secu r ed hi s o wn co uns el, who r en ewe d Br ac ey ’s re q u es t fo r sp olia tio n sa n c tio n s. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtu ltim ate l y deni ed thi s m oti on, re fusi ng the adver se i nfe re nce instr ucti on be cause none o f the i nd i vi du alN o. 12

- 1644 5 defe nd an ts w er e invol ved i n the deci si on notto prese rv e the vi deo. Braceyl ostattr i al. H e no w appeal s bo th the deni al of h is m ot ion to rec ru it c ou n s e l a n d th e d en ial of h is m oti on f orspol i ati on s ancti ons.

I I . Discussi on A . T h e D istrict C ou rtD id N ot A b u se I ts D iscreti on i n D enyi ng Br acey ’ s Req uest f orCoun sel Dist ri ct c ourt s m ay askan a tto rneyto rep resent a l i ti g an t unabl e to pa y f o r hi s o wn l awy er . § 1 91 5( e) ( 1)
. To q u alify , th e i n d ige n t litig an t m u st m ak e re as on ab le effo rt s a t fin d in g c o u n s el h im se lf. P rui ttv. M ote, 50 3 F
. 3d 647, 65 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( en banc). If th e l i ti gant com es up sho rt, then the di str i ct c ourtm ust deci de w hether “gi ven the di ffi cul ty ofthe case , ” the pl ai nt iff i s “ com pete n t t o tr y i t hi m sel f

. ” Id. ( ci ti ng Far m e rv. Haas , 99 0 F. 2d 319, 32 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) )
. I m port an tly, the dist ri ct cour t m ust co n sid er bo th hal ves ofthi s e quati on

— th e di ffi cul tyo fthe c ase an d the c o m pet en ce o fthe litig an t. Id. at 660. W he n re v ie w ing the district cou rt’s d e t e r mi n a t i o n o n c o mpl e x i t y a n d c o mpe t e nc y , we co ns i derthe r ea so nabl en es s o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’s c o nc l u s i o n in l i g h to fth e e v i d e n c e a s i ts t o o d a tth e t i me of t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n . Id. at65 9. W e r evi ew deni al s o f§ 1915 ( e) m oti ons f oran abuse of d isc re tio n . Id. a t 65 8. Thus, w e affi r m unl es s th e dist ri ct c ourthas appli ed the w ro ng l ega l st andard ( or m ade o th er er r o r s o f l aw) , m ade cl ea rly er r o ne o us6 N o. 12

- 1644 f actualfi nd i ngs, o r re nd er ed a c l ear l y a rbi tr ar y decisi on w i t h o u t a n y s u p p or t in th e re c or d

. Id. Ev e n the n, an appell ate co urt can o nly re ver se w hen the abse nce o f counselprej ud i ced the l i ti gant, wh i ch r equi re s “ a r e as onab l el i ke l i hood th at th e p re se n c e o f co u n se l w ou ld h av e m ad e a d iffer en c e in th e o u tc om e o f th e litig at ion .” Id. at 659 ( em phasi s i n or i gi nal )
. The gov er nm ent d oes not chal l enge the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co nclu sio n that Bracey m ad e reason able attem p ts to obtain co un sel him self, an d Brac ey d oes not cha ll en ge th e d istri ct cou r t ’s fi nd i ngs re gar ding the quali ty of hi s pro se repres entati on. Instea d, Braceyem phasi zes “the di ffi cul ti es [ he] fac ed as a p ris on er at te m p tin g t o ga th er ev id en c e.” C om p lexities anticipat ed ( or arising) du ring discov ery c an j u st ify a co u rt ’s d ec isio n to rec ru it c ou n se l. Id. at 655; see a ls o Sa ntiago v. Walls , 599 F.3d 749 , 764 (7th C ir. 2010). Braceyargues l ar gel y that the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to consi der the co m ple xi ti es i nvol ved i n the i nvest i gat i on o fthe a l l eg ed spo l i at i o n o fthe v i deo ta pes . Acco r di ng to h im , th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s o rd er m ak e s n o e x p licit m en ti o n o fth e spo l i at i o n i ss ue whenc o ns i der i ngthe com p lex ity ofthe case . Thus, he c onti nues, the dist ri ct co ur t dec i ded hi s r eque stf o r c o uns elwi th o utg i ving “s ign ifica n t w eig h t” to th is “ v er y im p or ta n t fa c to r.” San t i ago , 59 9 F
. 3d at 763. True, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rder d en yi ng the r equest f or counsel did not expli ci tl y com m ent on th e s p ol i ati on i ssue, and the dist ri ct c ourtknew that i ssue ex istedN o. 12

- 1644 7

B rac ey initially raised his alleg atio ns o f sp olia tion as a 2 s t and- al one c ounti n the c om pl ai nt
. W i scon sin does no tr ec ogni ze s pol i atio n as ani ndepe nden tt or t, ho wever, s o the di s t ri ct courtdi s m i s s ed thatc ount, des c ribi ng s pol i at i on as ani s s ue f or di s c ove ry . w hen it ru led o n the re quest. But nei therdi d the di str i ct 2 co ur t’ s an al y si s co m pl et ely i g no r e di sc o ve r y : “ At the prel i m i narypre tr i alco nfe re nce, pl ai nti ffwil l be gi ven th e o ppo r tu ni tyt o a skque st i ons h e has abo utl i ti g at i ng hi s ca se and he w i l l be i nstr ucted abo ut how to u se disco ve r yt ec hni que s av ai lable t o a l l l i ti g an ts unde r the Feder al Rules of Civi l Pro cedure so that he ca n gather th e evide nc e he ne ed s to p rove his case

. ” G iven th e d eferenti alst andard o f r evi ew , thi s l anguage suffi ces to show the di str i ct c ourtco nsi dered the co m p l exi ty of sp ol i ati on- re l ate d disco ver y in thi s ca se, part i cul ar ly w hen the dist ri ct c ourthad previ ousl y res er ved that s p o l i a t i o n i s s u e f o r d i s c o v e r y . Mo r e o v e r, wh i l e we h av e re c og n ize d ca se s in vo lvin g m ed ica l ex p er t t es tim o ny o r s ta te o fmin d r equi r ement s as l eg al l y c o m p lex, s e eSa nt i ago , 599 F.3d at76 1, w e h av e fo u n d n o c as e in thi s ci rcui t i denti fyi ng spol i ati on a s a c om ple x l ega l i ssue supp or ti ng r ecr uitm en t ofco unsel

. In f act, o ther c irc u it s h av e n otfou n d an ab u se of d isc re tio n in d en yin g c o u n se l in c as es als o in vo lvin g s p olia tio n . See Jenn ing s v. B r a dley, 41 9 F
. A pp ’ x 594 ( 6th Ci r. 20 11) (n on -p re c e d e n tia l); Rhode s v. Rob i ns on , 39 9 F
. A pp ’ x 160 (9t h C ir. 20 10 ) (n on -p re c ed en tia l); se e also Brow n v. Her tz , 43 7 F . A p p ’x 49 6, 50 0 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ) (n on -p r e c e d en tia l) ( rej ec ting necess i ty ofco unselto m ake co unty e m plo yee s8 N o. 12

- 1644

W he n ev alu atin g a p lain tiff’ s com p e t en ce, district co u rts 3 s houl d n o r mal l y c o n s i de rthe pl ai nt i ff’ s l i t er ac y, c om m uni c at i on sk ill s, ed u ca tio n le v el , an d lit ig a tio n ex p er ie n ce . P ru itt, 503 F. 3d a t65 5. The pl ai nt i ff’ s i nt el l ec t ual c ap ac i t y a nd ps yc holo g ic a l h ist o ry ar e a lso re le v a n t. Id. Santiago it se lfrec ognized the u niquenes s ofthe li ti gant i n that 4 case: “[A ]ltho u g h th e p rinc ip les of law w e articu late ar e w elles t abl i s he d, our pr ec i s e ho ldi ng i s l i m i t ed t o the f ac t s an d ci rcum st ances f ound i n the rec ord of this l it igat ion. In that se nse, our ho l di ng, like a spe cial ra i lroa d f are , is li m ited ‘ to this d a y a nd this train on ly.’ ” 59 9 F .3d at 76 6 (em p ha sis in o ri g in a l). “ mo r e r e s p o n s i v e t o d i s c o v e r y re qu e s t s ” )
. T h u s , we concl ud e that the dist ri ct cour t did not abuse its d i scre ti on in i ts consi derat i on o fthe com ple xi ty ofthe case . Braceydoes notdi re ctl y c hal l enge hi s co m pe tence to l i ti gat e the cas e. H e doe s, however, sugg estthata 3 l aw yerwould have al l owed hi m acc ess to cer tain pri son p o l i c i e s b y p e r mi t t i n g“ a t t o r n e y s ’ e y e s o n l y ” r e v i e w. T h i s d e fi c i e n c y, th o u g h, r e l a t e s n o tt o B r a c e y ’ s c o mpet e nc y b ut mer e l y t o hi s s t a t us a s a pr i s o n i nma t e . Fo r th is r eason , Brac ey’s situation diffe r s from the li tigant ’s po stu re i n Santiago v. Walls

. In th at cas e, th e li tigant ’s i nabi l i ty to i nvest i gat e hi s cl ai m after hi s tr ansfe r to a di ffer en t pr i son

— and the di str i ct c ourt ’ s f ai l ure to consi der thi s f act

— re sul ted in the co urt’ s abuse o fdi sc re tio n in d en yin g t h e § 1 91 5 re q u es t. San t i ago , 59 9 F
. 3d at7 62

- 63
. Unli ke the c i r cumst an ce s i n San t i ago , uni que to that p risoner alone, alli nm a t es con front th e d iscovery 4 re str i cti ons facing Bracey : i nter nal pri son pol i ci es haveN o. 12

- 1644 9

Am ong the pot en t i al l y r el eva ntque s t i ons s uc h pol i c i es m i ght 5 an sw er ar e: W h e n are co rrectio ns o fficers au tho rized to u se force ? H ow m u ch f or ce is au tho rized in certa in situ atio ns? W hat prel im inary m eas ures m ust of fic ers t a k e b ef ore res orti ng to f orce? r el ev an ce i n n ea r l y e ver y pr i so n l aws ui t al l eg i ngthe ex cess ive use of f o r c e . Th us , i f th e nee d to acces s othe r- 5 w i se i nacces sibl e docum ents requir es re crui tm ent o f c o un s e l, r e c r ui t men t wo ul d r e s ul t i n ne a r l y a l l such ca se s. S ec ti o n 1 91 5 do es no t i m po se tha t bur den

. O th er cons iderat ions su p p ort the d istri ct co u r t’s dec i si o n a s wel l

. The di st r i ctc o ur t o ffer ed Br ac eyi nstr ucti on on di sco ver y in federa l co urt. A nd Brace y coul d al w ays have r enewed hi s r equest f orco unsel w h en co nfr onte d w i th the di ffi cul ti es ofo btaini ng pri son secur i ty docum ents. Of cour se, a d istr i ct c ourtneed not spontaneo usl y rev isi t a n ear l i err uling o n a § 19 15 m oti on, but nothi ng pre vents a pro se l i tigant fro m ag ain req u es tin g c ou n s e l la te r ina p ro c ee d in g. See San t i ago , 599 F.3d at76 4 (n ot in g c ou rtca n “q u es tio n . . . whethe r the l an g ua g e o fthe di st r i ctco ur t i n di spo sing of th e [ § 19 15 mot i o n] i m per m i ss ibl y pr ev en te d [ th e p ro se li tigant ] from m aking l ater req ue sts [forcou ns el] ”). M or e im p or ta n tly , w h en B ra c ey d id ev en tu ally ob ta in co uns el, he c o ul d ha ve r eque st ed a continua nc e an d asked to reop e n d isc overy. H e d id n ot. W hile the cou rt m ay have denie d that r equest, ifpro se di sco ver y s o ha m p ered his case an d i f attorn ey-assisted discov ery w o u ld h av e y ield ed sign ifica n t b en efit s, on e w ou ld ex pec t Br ac eyt o a t l ea sta dva nc e su cha po si ti o n.10 N o. 12

- 1644 I n shor t, the dist ri ct c ourtknew of B ra cey’ s s pol i ati on all egat i o ns whenc o nc l udi ngBr ac eyc o ul d ha ndl e th e ca se hi m se l f

. Br ac eyr ec ei ve d pr o s e su ppo r t an d t r aini ng re sour ces. A fteral l that, Brace y s tillco uld have r eque st ed co uns ell at eri n the pr o ce edingo r a sk ed th e co ur t to r eo pendi sc o ve r y, y ethe ch o se no t to pur su e that cour se ofa c tio n. On these f acts , we fi nd no abuse of disc re ti on in denyi ng Brac ey’ s fi rs t a nd o nl y r equest for cou ns el und e r § 1 915(e). Be cau se th e d istri ct cou rt did not a b u se i ts disc re ti on in eva l uati ng the co m ple xi ty of the ca s e and Brac ey’s com p eten ce as a p ro se l iti gator, w e nee d not a dd re ss the i ssue ofprej ud i ce.
B. Th e D i st r i ctCourtD i d N otA bu se I t s D i scr etion i n D ecl in i ng t o I ssue an A dver se I nfer ence I nstruct i o n In thi s ci rcui t, wh en a partyi ntenti onal l y dest ro ys evid en ce in bad f aith, the j ud ge m ay instru ct t h e j ury to i nfe r the e vi dence co ntai ned i ncri m i natory c onte nt. Faas v. Se ars , Roe b uc k & Co. , 532 F.3d 633 , 644 (7th C ir. 2008 )
. W hen cons i deri ng the pro pri etyof s u ch an ad ve rs e in fer en c e in st ru c tio n, “[t]h e c r u c ial ele m en t is no t th atthe e vi den ce was de st r o y ed butr athe r the re aso n f orthe destr ucti on. ” Park v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 297 F
. 3d 60 6, 6 15 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( quo tingS
. C. Joh n s on & So n , In c. v. Lo ui s vi l l e& N as hvi l l eR. R. Co. , 69 5 F
. 2d 253, 25 8 ( 7th C ir. 1982)); s e eal s o Norm an-N unn e ry v . M adi s on Are a Te ch
. C oll. , 625 F. 3d 422, 428 ( 7th Cir
. 2010 )
. A p ar ty d estro ys a d ocu m en t in bad f aith w he n it do e s s o “for th e pu rpose ofhi ding advers e info rm ati on. ” Faas , 532 F. 3d atN o. 12

- 1644 11

W e n o t e a l so th a tB r a c e y h a s n o ta p p e a l e d th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s 6 deni al ofhis m ot i on t o c om pel pr oduc t i on ofthe pr i s on s ec ur i ty pol i c i es tha t B ra c ey be l i eve s wil l pr ovi de the ev id en ce su p p or ting his spo liation arg u m en t. 644 ( quoti ng Rum m e ry v . Il l
. Be l l Te l
. Co. , 250 F. 3d 553, 55 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) )
. W e r e v i e w a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni a l o f ana dve r se i nfer ence i ns truct i o n f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, P a rk, 297 F .3d at61 5, but “ ‘ bad f ai th’ i s a questi on o ff act like any other, ” M athis v. John M orden Buick, Inc. , 13 6 F
. 3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )
. Br a c e y r e qu e s t e d a n a dver se i nfe re nce instr ucti on r ega rdi ng the destr oye d vi deotape, wh i ch the dist ri ct c ourtde n ied

. H e no w ra i ses two ar gum ents on a pp eal

. Both l ack m er i t. Fi rs t, Brace y s ugges ts that the dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on bydenyi ng the m oti on pre m atur ely. A ccor ding to Bracey, he l acke d a cces s t o the e vi dence nece ssary to s h o w s p oli ation, preve nt ing the district cou rt f ro m m aking the f act- i nt ensi ve i nquir y a spol i ati on m otion requ ires and resulting in an i nh eren tly arb itrary deci si on. Thi s a rgum ent a tte m pts to shift the burden ofpro of

. A s th e m oving par ty, Brace y m ust e stabl i sh th e defen dan ts des tr o y ed th e vi deo ta pes i n ba d f ai th

. R um m ery, 2 50 F. 3d at 558 ( denyi ng adver se i nfe re nce i nstr ucti on wh en m oving par ty “offer ed n o evi dence, othe r than h is ow n specul ati on, that[ the docum ents] wer e des tr o y ed to hi de” i nc r i m i na to r y e vi den ce)
. On th e evi d en c e avail abl e, he ha s no t done so. The m er e f act th at so m e e vid en c e re m ain ed u n av aila b le t o h im d oes not l essen his burd en of p roof. 612 N o. 12

- 1644 Se cond, Brace y a rgues the m erits ofthe spol i ati on m oti on, chal l engi ng the dist ri ct cour t’ s fi nd in g t hat “de fen dan ts a re j us t no t i n a ny wayr es po ns ibl e f o r the destr ucti on o fthe fi l m . ” Accord in g to Bracey, defendants h a d a d u t y t o p r e s e r v e th e v i d e o s o i t s d e s t r u c t i o n c o mp els iss u in g a n ad ve rs e in fer en c e in st ru c tio n . Sim p ly es ta b lish in g d efe n d an ts ’ d u ty to p re se rv e, h ow ev er , i s not enough: Brace y m ust a l so show d est ructi on in bad f ai th

. Ass um i ng

— wi th o utde ci di ng

— that defe nd ants had a duty t o prese rve the ta pes, bad f ai th r equi re s destr ucti on “f or the pu rpos e of hi ding adver se i nfo rm ati on. ” Faas , 53 2 F
. 3d at 644. Brace y a sse rt s o nl y that a pri son secur i ty offi cerr evi ew ed hi s co m pla i nt. H e m a k e s n o a s s e r t i o n tha ta nyp r i s o n o ffi ci al ac tu ally vie w ed th e re lev an t v id eo (or d elib er at e ly av o i ded wat ch i ngthe v i d eo forfea r o fwhati t co ntained). W i thout havi ng see n the vi deo, no p ri son o ffi ci alc o ul d ha ve kno wn th e ta pes po te nt i al l y c o nta i n ed ad ve rs e in for m at ion an d , w ith ou t t h at kn ow ledge, co u ld have destr oy ed the tapes f orthe pu rpos e o f h id in g a d ve rs e in for m at ion
. Inth is re ga rd , M at hi s v. John M o rden B uic k, Inc. i s instr ucti ve. In that c as e, the o w ner ofthe defe nd an t ca r deal er shi p i ntenti onal l y dest ro yed docum ents that he had a l egal o b li gat i on t o prese rv e. M at his , 1 36 F.3d at11 55 . N ev er th ele ss , his op p on en t d id n ot show bad fa i th

— th a t th e o wn e r h a d d e s t r o y ed th e docum ents “f orthe pu rpos e o fhi ding advers e info rm ati o n”

— so no a dvers e infe re nce instr ucti on co uld i ssue. Id. at11 55- 56; s e ealso Tras k-M or t on v. M ot e l 6 O pe r at i ng L
. P. , 534 F. 3d 672, 681- 82 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 ) ( affi rm i n g d eni al of spo liation san ction w he re no evid en ce of bad f aith);N o. 12

- 1644 13 P a rk, 29 7 F
. 3d at 615- 16 ( affi rm i ng d en ial ofspol i ati on san ction w he n record s d estroyed un d er routine record ex p u n ge m en t p olic y); Coates v. Johns on & Johns on , 75 6 F. 2d 524, 55 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) ( affi rm i ng deni alo fspol i ati o n s a n c t i o n wh e n r e c o r d s d e s t r o y e d u n d e r r o u t i ne p r o c e d u r e s )
. No th i n gi n a n y o fB r a c ey ’ s f i l i n g s s h o ws defend an ts d estroyed th e v ideo bec au se o fa ny dam aging co ntent i t m ay have conta i ned. W i thout that s h ow in g, M a thi s f or ecl ose s Bra cey’ s e nti tl em ent t o an adv er se i nfer en ce i ns truct i o n. W e r eco gni ze that a num ber o f di str i ct c ourt s hav e i ssued adver se i nfe re nce i nstr ucti ons i n si tuati ons si m i l ar to B ra c ey ’s. Se eKoune l i s v. Sh e r r er, 52 9 F
. S up p. 2d 50 3, 51 9-2 1 (D .N .J. 20 08 ); LaJoc i e s v. Ci ty of N
. La s Vegas , N o. 2: 08-cv-606 -GM N -GW F, 2011 W L 16303 31, at * 3-5 (D . N ev . A p r. 28 , 201 1); Pe s c he l v . Ci ty of M is soula , 6 64 F. S up p. 2d 11 37, 11 43- 44 ( D. M ont. 20 09)
. That o ther tr i alco urts have r eached di ffer en t co ncl usi ons on si m i l arf acts , however, does notam ount t o an abuse o f disc re ti on bythe dist ri ct c ourti n thi s case. Ind eed, di scre ti on byi ts ver y na tu re per m i ts differ ent j ud ges to r ea chdi ffer en t

—b u t re as on ab le

— co nc l us i o ns o n the sam e s et off acts
. S om e ci rcuit s hav e a dopted l ess str i ngent sta nd ar ds than we re quir e fori ssui ng an advers e in fer en c e i n s tr u c tio n . C o m pa re P a rk, 29 7 F
. 3d at 615 ( re q u irin g in te n tio n al d es tr u c tio n in b ad fa ith ), with Adki ns v. Wo l e ver, 6 92 F
. 3d 49 9, 5 04

- 05 ( 6th Ci r . 2 01 2) ( r equi r i ng on ly n e glig en t d es tr u c tio n an d a d u ty to p re se rv e), and Glov e rv. BIC Corp. , 6 F. 3d 1318, 1 32 9 ( 9th Ci r. 19 93) (bad fai t h not req uired f or ad verse inferen ce instru ction). Si m plyes tab l i shi ng a du ty to prese rv e e vi dence orev en14 N o. 12

- 1644 th e n eg lige n t d es tr u c tio n of ev id en c e d oe s n otau to m at ic allyenti tl e a l i ti gant to an adver se i nfe re nce instr ucti on in thi s ci rcui t. Brace y has notm ade the re quis i te sh o wi ngo fb ad f ai th, a nd we ca nno t co nc lud e t ha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n in de cl i ni ng t o i ss ue ana dve r se i nfer en ce i ns truct i o n. Fi nal l y, i n hi s r epl y, Brace y a sks the co u rt t o re open di sc o ve r y s o he c anpur su e ev i den ce s ur r o undi ngthe destr ucti on o fthe vi deotapes

. H e m ade no su ch m otion after tr ia l cou ns el entered his app earan ce before th e d ist ric t c ou rtan d h as n otrais ed t h is re q u es t u n til h is re p ly b rie f so th at arg u m en t is w aiv ed

. Se eCol e m an v. Har dy, 6 90 F. 3d 811, 81 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( ar gum ent no t ra ise d b efo re d ist ric t cou rt w a i ve d ); D ye v . U nited Sta tes , 360 F. 3d 744, 751 n.7(7th Cir
. 2004) (ar gum ent fi rs t r ai sed i n re plybr i efwaive d). Giv en hi s pri oro pp or tuni ti es to m a ke th ese req ue sts an d the civilnatu re of B racey’s cl ai m s, nei therdo the in ter est s o fj usti ce r equi re r eopeni ng di sco ver y in hi s ca se. I n shor t, Brace y b ear s the bur den ofsho w i ng defendants had a duty t o p re serve the v i deotape and destro yed that vi deo i n bad f ai th. That bur den has notbee n m et.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthes e r eas ons, we A F F I RM the d ist rict co urt’ s deni al of B race y ’ s r eque stf o r the r ec r ui tmento fc o uns ela nd it s den i alo fBr ac ey ’ s r eque stf o r a n a dve r se i nferen ce i ns truct i o n.

3- 15- 13