In 1983 action, summary judgment was granted in favor of the Sheriff and the County. The plaintiff argued on appeal that he was entitled to a spoliation inference, because defendants “destroyed evidence in bad faith by causing the ‘greenouts’ on the prison surveillance camera. Under the spoliation doctrine, a jury may draw an adverse inference ‘that a party who intentionally destroys important evidence in bad faith did so because the contents of those documents were unfavorable to that party.’ Even if we were to find bad faith and apply a spoliation inference, such inference would not substantially bolster the case against Reeves or the county. Even with that inference, the summary judgment evidence shows that the Sheriff was not present at the jail before Whitt died. Nor would the inference be relevant to significant issues of material fact against the County; it would not permit a jury to conclude that the county was deliberately indifferent in failing to train or supervise its employees. At least one Circuit has opined that ‘in borderline cases, an inference of spoliation, in combination with some (not insubstantial) evidence for the plaintiff’s cause of action, can allow the plaintiff to survive summary judgment.’ Here, however, the case against Reeves and the county, based on the summary judgment evidence, is not borderline. But for the spoliation inference, there is little other substantial summary judgment evidence of liability against those defendants. Although a spoliation inference might be more helpful in claims against the individual jailers, whose actions remain in doubt and would have been recorded on the video, limitations bars Whitt’s claims against them.” See Whitt v. Stephens County, 529 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2008).
Leave a Reply