The rule in Scott is generally, although not exclusively, applied in cases involving video evidence. See Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2016) (summarizing the holding in Scott as stating that "[w]hen the evidence includes a videotape of the relevant events, the Court should not adopt the nonmoving party's version of the events when that version is blatantly contradicted by the videotape"); see also Blackman v. Johnson, No. 13-cv-470, 2014 WL 6685950, at *5 and n. 2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2014) (Coleman, J.) (the court found only one Seventh Circuit case, Holt v. Ford Motor Co., 275 Fed. App'x 553, 554 (7th Cir. 2008) (unpublished), applying the Scott rule in the absence of video evidence). In Holt, a plaintiff sued a car dealership for repossessing his vehicle after he defaulted on his purchase contract, arguing that his signature on the contract was forged and that he had actually bought the vehicle under an oral contract with a lower monthly payment.
Instead, the Court concludes that because all of the other evidence in the case indicates that the beating did not occur, including several contemporaneous medical records and Plaintiff's own failure to complain at the time, no reasonable jury could believe his present theory. SeeScott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) ("When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment."); Holt v. Ford Motor Credit Co. , 275 F. App'x 553, 554 (7th Cir. 2008) (no genuine dispute of fact where plaintiff produced an affidavit swearing that he did not sign a contract and all other evidence in the record suggested he did). As a result, Plaintiff's excessive force claim must fail.
See Barrett v. Wallace, 570 F. App'x 598, 601 (7th Cir. 2014) (video recording); Rivera v. Jimenez, 556 F. App'x 505, 506-07 (7th Cir. 2014) (44-minute video); Gillis v. Pollard, 554 F. App'x 502, 506 (7th Cir. 2014) (video recordings); Johnson v. Moeller, 269 F. App'x 593, 596 (7th Cir. 2008) (security tape). In Holt v. Ford Motor Co., a plaintiff sued a car dealership for repossessing his vehicle after he defaulted on his purchase contract. 275 F. App'x 553, 554 (7th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff argued that the dealership forged his signature on the purchase contract and that he, instead, bought the vehicle under an oral contract at a lower price.