United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
CHRISTOPHER L. SCRUGGS, Plaintiff,
v.
NURSE WEST, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT
L. MILLER, JR., JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
This
matter is before the court on the several pending motions of
Christopher L. Scruggs. Mr. Scruggs proceeds in this case on
Eighth Amendment claims against Nurse West for using
excessive force against him by closing a cuff port on his
hand in October 24, 2015, and against Officer Miller for
failing to intervene. ECF 177. Since the summary judgment
stage, Mr. Scruggs filed numerous motions that largely
pertained to his assertion that the surveillance video
recording of the incident has been altered. The court
recruited an attorney to represent Mr. Scruggs at trial and
denied these pending motions with leave to refile after Mr.
Scruggs had the chance to consult with the attorney. ECF 219.
After the court set this case for trial, Mr. Scruggs
terminated this attorney and filed several motions, including
a motion to renew the earlier motions.
Mr.
Scruggs seeks various forms of relief in the motions he seeks
to renew, including discovery sanctions, reopening discovery,
and the appointment of an expert, but the overarching theme
is his assertion that the surveillance video recording of the
incident had been altered. In discovery, Mr. Scruggs asked
for the recording of the incident, and the litigation liaison
at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility received a copy of
a recording and Mr. Scruggs watched it. ECF 49, ECF 102, ECF
103. Mr. Scruggs then filed several motions alleging that
defense counsel gave him an altered or fake recording. He
explained that, while the recording depicted Nurse West at
his cell, it was entirely inconsistent with the narrative
portion of his complaint as well as Officer Miller's
incident report. Nurse West filed a motion for summary
judgment and submitted a recording of the incident as an
exhibit.[1] ECF 110. At that time, Mr. Scruggs alleged
that the recording he received during discovery and the
recording submitted by the Nurse West were not the same
recording. ECF 167-1 at 15, ECF 167-2 at 16. He accused the
defendants of creating a new recording after he had
complained to the court about the recording's
authenticity. He further accused the defendants of editing
the recording filed as a summary judgment exhibit, noting
that the recording skips at two places and asserting that the
recording falsely indicates that the incident took place
within ninety seconds instead of over the course of five to
ten minutes.
Mr.
Scruggs seeks default judgment, jury instructions, and
monetary fines as sanctions against the defendants, arguing
that the defendants initially produced an altered recording
and then filed a different recording with the court that was
also altered. The defendants respond that there is only one
recording and that they produced and filed this recording as
they received it. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
authorize the court to sanction parties if they do not comply
with discovery obligations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. For the harsh
sanction of default judgment, the plaintiff must show that
the defendants “acted or failed to act with a degree of
culpability that exceeds simple inadvertence or
mistake.” Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc., 845
F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2016); Barnhill v. United
States, 11 F.3d 1360, 1368 (7th Cir. 1993). The
plaintiff must prove the factual basis for sanctions by a
preponderance of the evidence. Ramirez, 845 F.3d at
781.
The
parties dispute whether there are one or two versions of the
recording. The defendants represent that the recording
produced in discovery and the recording on file are the same
recording. Though Mr. Scruggs maintains that he viewed a
different recording before the summary judgment motion was
filed, but he hasn't filed that recording or any other
evidence to corroborate its existence. Even if there were two
recordings, Mr. Scruggs hasn't shown that the defendants
produced the first recording with knowledge that it was
erroneous or otherwise acted in bad faith. Instead, Mr.
Scruggs alleges that this recording that was entirely
inconsistent with Officer Miller's incident report. A
discrepancy of this magnitude would be immediately apparent,
and it seems unlikely that the defendants would try to
mislead the court in so clumsy a manner. Nor has Mr. Scruggs
demonstrated that this first recording prejudiced him as he
concedes that this recording was replaced with a more
accurate recording at the summary judgment stage. In sum, Mr.
Scruggs hasn't demonstrated that it is more likely than
not that the defendants intentionally produced a fake
recording during the discovery stage.
The
parties also dispute whether the recording on file has been
edited. After reviewing the recording, it appears that Mr.
Scruggs is referring to one or both of the following. First,
the recording occasionally jumps forward during periods of
inactivity and the timestamps indicate that these jumps are
at intervals ranging from minutes to hours. The recording
also occasionally freezes for one or two seconds before
resuming, and the timestamps indicate that only one or two
seconds have elapsed. These occurrences aren't limited to
the portions depicting the excessive force incident, but also
occur in parts of the recording that are immaterial to this
case, including those from the day after the incident. These
occurrences are obvious and apparent, not subtle or in any
way concealed. The defendants offer no explanation other than
to state that they produced the recording as it was produced
to them, but it seems more likely than not that these
occurrences are the result of the intricacies of the
surveillance recording system, including as motion sensors
and technical glitches, rather than a targeted effort to
alter the recording.
Mr.
Scruggs also maintains that this recording must have been
altered because it is inconsistent with his recollection of
the incident. Witnesses often remember things differently,
and this recording is consistent with Officer Miller's
incident report, Sergeant Penning's incident report, and
Nurse West's affidavit. ECF 88-1, ECF 108-1. The jury
will have to decide whose memory is correct. Mr. Scruggs
hasn't shown that it is more likely than not that the
recording on file is edited.
Mr.
Scruggs asserts that the defendants should be sanctioned for
several instances of alleged misconduct, including Officer
Miller's responses to requests for admissions, Nurse
West's declaration, and missing medical requests. These
assertions suffer from similar evidentiary deficiencies about
whether the defendants' representations contradicting Mr.
Scruggs's version of the events are false and whether the
inaccuracies are the result of intentional misconduct by the
defendants. Consequently, sanctions are unwarranted, and the
motion for sanctions is denied.
Mr.
Scruggs further seeks to reopen discovery and an appointed
expert to locate the recording produced during discovery and
to investigate the authenticity of the recording on file.
Whether the recording on file accurately depicts the cuff
port incident is a material issue apart from any allegation
of intentional misconduct, and Mr. Scruggs hasn't
presented evidence of alteration apart from his own opinions.
Mr. Scruggs hasn't shown sufficient cause for an expert
to be appointed, but less good cause to re-open discovery.
Mr. Scruggs hasn't explained how he intends to seek
discovery on this issue without appointment of an expert.
Nor
does the court believe that additional discovery is necessary
to resolve the authenticity issue. As it stands, the only
evidence on record as to the accuracy of the recording on
file is the statements of the parties.[2] At trial, neither
party will be able to credibly deny the existence of the time
jumps and skipped frames identified by Mr. Scruggs, and no
expert is needed for the proposition that surveillance
recording systems are fallible and imperfect. At that time,
the defendants may testify that the recording is generally
consistent with their recollections, and Mr. Scruggs may
highlight the time jumps and skipped frames and testify about
the events omitted by the recording. The jury will decide the
credibility of the parties as well as the recording, and the
court declines to reopen discovery or to appoint an expert.
For
these reasons, the court GRANTS the motion for ruling (ECF
242) and the motion to refile (ECF 233) as it pertains to the
motion for sanctions (ECF 197); and DENIES the motions for an
expert (ECF 186, ECF 241), the motion for sanctions (ECF
197), and the motion to amend the scheduling order (ECF 231).
SO
ORDERED
---------