Richard Hoffer sued the City of Yonkers and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force during his arrest in 2016. The central dispute at trial concerned a taser deployment by Officer Goff. While Officer Goff testified that he deployed the taser twice, the electronic log from the device only reflected one deployment during the arrest, with the other event listed as a shift test. Officer Goff testified that the video of the first deployment had been overwritten, but provided no further explanation. Hoffer's girlfriend testified that she saw an officer holding a USB drive and heard her say it showed everything the officers did but nothing Hoffer did. Hoffer requested an adverse inference instruction, arguing the missing video was spoliated evidence. The district court denied the request, finding insufficient evidence that the officers acted with intent to deprive Hoffer of the video. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers, and Hoffer appealed the denial of the instruction.
The Second Circuit addressed three primary issues regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2). First, the court clarified the state of mind required for sanctions. It held that to impose sanctions like an adverse inference instruction, a court or jury must find by a preponderance of the evidence that a party acted with the 'intent to deprive' another party of the lost information. The court explicitly rejected the application of the lesser 'culpable state of mind' standard, which included negligence, that had been used in prior Second Circuit decisions like Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp. The court reasoned that the 2015 amendment to Rule 37(e)(2) was designed to reject negligence-based sanctions for lost electronic evidence, as only intentional loss logically supports an inference that the evidence was unfavorable. Second, the court determined the burden of proof, holding that the 'intent to deprive' standard must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. The court noted that the specific intent requirement itself is a high bar, and the preponderance standard aligns with the usual rule in civil cases. Third, the court clarified that while a district court may delegate the intent finding to a jury, it is not required to do so; the court may make factual findings and credibility determinations itself. Applying these standards, the court affirmed the district court's decision. The district court had found that there was no clear evidence the first video ever existed and that Officer Goff's testimony about the video being overwritten lacked direct knowledge. The court also noted that the officers' testimony regarding two deployments undercut the theory of a cover-up. The district court was entitled to discount the testimony of Hoffer's girlfriend regarding the USB drive based on credibility concerns.
This decision establishes a strict intent requirement for adverse inference instructions regarding lost electronic evidence in the Second Circuit, effectively ending the use of negligence-based standards for Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions. Plaintiffs seeking such instructions must now prove that the opposing party specifically intended to deprive them of the evidence, rather than merely showing that the evidence was lost through negligence. The judgment in Hoffer's case stands, meaning the jury's verdict in favor of the police officers remains in effect. The case was affirmed without remand, closing the litigation on the merits of the excessive force claim as tried.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download