Opinion
5:21-cv-325-ACC-PRL
12-13-2022
DIANA HONAKER, Plaintiff, v. WALMART, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
PHHJP R. LAMMENS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff Diana Honaker filed a motion for spoliation of evidence due to Walmart, Inc.'s purported failure to preserve CCTV surveillance footage depicting the area where the subject incident occurred. (Doc. 46). In efforts to respond to this motion, Walmart “renewed its efforts to determine what occurred with the subject video” and conducted an extensive review of the archived paper records maintained in storage at the Leesburg store and found a disc with a video file dated January 27, 2020. (Docs. 56 at 3; 562 at ¶9). Because the CCTV video has now been provided, Plaintiff's motion for spoliation of evidence (Doc. 46) is due to be denied as moot.
However, because Plaintiff was forced to file the instant motion in order to obtain the subject video, she is entitled to recover her reasonable attorney's fees and expenses in bringing the motion. Within 10 days of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit an affidavit detailing the reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in preparing and filing the motion for spoliation. To the extent that Walmart, Inc. objects to the amount of fees and expenses claimed by Plaintiff, it shall file a response within ten days of service of Plaintiff's affidavit. After reviewing Plaintiff's affidavit and any objections by Walmart, Inc., the Court will enter 1 an appropriate award or, if necessary, set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. If the parties reach an agreement on the amount of fees and expenses they shall so advise the Court.
DONE and ORDERED 2