Accordingly, "[a] culpable state of mind includes the knowing or negligent failure to produce evidence." PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06-CV-1104 (DLC), 2007 WL 1837135, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2007). In this case, having considered all of the facts, the Court finds that Fossil acted in a manner that meets the "ordinary negligence" standard.

Rather, courts have generally applied the law discussed in briefing where a pro se party failed to object. See Robert Smalls Inc. v. Hamilton, No. 09-CV-7171, 2010 WL 3238955, at *4 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2010) (pro se defendants waived argument that law other than New York's applied, where they failed to raise the issue in briefing motion to dismiss); PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06-CV-1104, 2007 WL 1837135, at *3 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2007) (summary judgment motion decided under New York law where plaintiff briefed New York law and pro se defendant did not object); cf. Elliott v. Nestle Waters N. Am. Inc., No. 13-CV-6331, 2014 WL 1795297, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2014) (entertaining choice-of-law issue because pro se plaintiff's "opposition suggest[ed] an argument as to the applicability" of different state's law). For example, in Nakano v. Jamie Sadock, Inc., the pro se plaintiff attempted to raise an issue of Japanese law regarding a contract claim that had been dismissed on a motion for partial summary judgment.

Accordingly, "[a] culpable state of mind includes the knowing or negligent failure to produce evidence." PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06-CV-1104, 2007 WL 1837135, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2007). Defendants admit that their failure to preserve the video was negligent, (see Ds' Cross-Motion Opp'n Mem. 3), and thus they possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind to support the imposition of sanctions.

Furthermore, district courts have broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate sanction for a party's failure to produce documents in breach its discovery obligations, including the creation of an adverse inference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)-(d); Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002); PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06-CV-1104 (DLC), 2007 WL 1837135, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2007); Smoothline Ltd. v. N. Am. Foreign Trading Corp., No. 00-CV-2798 (DLC), 2003 WL 941442, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2003). "Even in the absence of a discovery order, a court may impose sanctions on a party for misconduct in discovery under its inherent power to manage its own affairs."

On June 27, 2007, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice to its renewal and plaintiffs were given an opportunity to conduct additional discovery. PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06 Civ. 1104(DLC), 2007 WL 1837135, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2007) ("June 2007 Opinion"). The June 2007 Opinion warned DeRosa-Grund that an adverse inference might be drawn against him if he persisted in his refusal to cooperate in that discovery. Id. at *4, 6. The June 2007 Opinion also denied DeRosa-Grund's application for further discovery due to his lack of diligence during the discovery period.

On June 26, 2007, plaintiffs' motion was denied without prejudice to its renewal after additional discovery (the "June 2007 Opinion"). PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06 Civ. 1104, 2007 WL 1837135 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2007). Plaintiffs have now filed their renewed motion.

Since plaintiff did not diligently utilize the time available to her to complete discovery, there is no reason to extend that time. Little v. City of New York, 487 F. Supp.2d 426, 435-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Gotlin v. Lederman, 04-CV-3736 (ILG), 05-CV-1899 (ILG), 2007 WL 1429431 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2007) (collecting cases); see Stone Webster Constr., Inc. v. E-J Elec. Installation Co., 06-CV-5641 (BMC) (SMG), 07-CV-2102 (BMC) (SMG), 2007 WL 1989444 at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2007); PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, 06 Civ. 1104 (DLC), 2007 WL 1837135 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2007). Plaintiff's application for an extension of time to raise her discovery disputes is also denied.