Opinion
1:16-cv-9-FDW
11-01-2016
KART KALANI SPARKS, Plaintiff, v. HENDERSON COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Preservation/Protection of Evidence, (Doc. No. 53).
In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court requiring Defendants to preserve all relevant evidence in this action, including videotape footage. The Court finds that an order requiring Defendants to preserve evidence is unnecessary because Defendants already have a duty to preserve evidence. Under the doctrine of spoliation, parties have a duty to preserve (including a duty to not destroy) evidence when litigation is filed or becomes reasonably anticipated. See Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001); Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 509 (D. Md. 2009). To fulfill the duty to preserve relevant evidence, "[o]nce a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it is obligated to suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and implement a "litigation hold" to ensure the preservation of relevant documents." Id. at 511. Here, if Defendants destroy any exculpatory evidence they will be subject to sanctions. However, because they are already under a duty to preserve evidence, an order from this Court is not necessary. Accord Wright v. Webber, C/A No. 1:11-2199-TLW-SVH, 2011 WL 6112371, at *3 (D.S.C. Nov. 10, 2011) ("Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer irreparable damage if an injunction does not issue, as Defendants already have a legal duty to preserve existing evidence when a lawsuit is filed."); McNair v. Ozmint, C/A No. 3:07-3470-HFF-JRM, 2008 WL 2128121, at *4 (D.S.C. May 20, 2008) (denying a motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve cassette tapes because there already existed a duty to preserve material evidence).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preservation/Protection of Evidence, (Doc. No. 53), is DENIED.
/s/_________
Frank D. Whitney
Chief United States District Judge