Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Ars-Fresno, LLC

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

October 10, 2017

JERVIS K. THOMAS, Plaintiff,
v.
ARS-FRESNO, LLC; AMERICAN RETAIL SERVICES, LLC; SHELL OIL CO.; AND TESORO WEST COAST CO.; AND DOES I -XX, Defendant.

          Tena Campbell District Judge.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING SHORT FORM DISCOVERY MOTION

          Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Jarvis Thomas seeks an order from the court compelling Defendants to designate a rule 30(b)(6) witness “to testify regarding their spoliation/selective preservation of video evidence and regarding produced evidence obtained through their legal counsel.”[1] The court will deny the motion.

         I. Security Camera Recordings

         This is a Civil Rights Action where Plaintiff alleges that on July 5, 2016, he was called derogatory racial slurs, discriminated against and physically threatened at a gas station.[2]Plaintiff seeks the security camera evidence from the incident, but the video files allegedly do not include certain parts of the incident, have gaps in the recording and do not include audio. After requesting the video and audio Defendants responded that they had “produced all video recordings they preserved from the store on July 5, 2016 as attachments to their Initial Disclosures.”[3] Plaintiff noticed a rule 30(b)(6) deposition and seeks testimony regarding the alleged selective preservation of and failures to preserve the recorded evidence.

         In response Defendants state that they have provided discovery responses “confirming that the security system at [the] store does not have audio recording equipment.”[4] The store manager, Christi Clark, “preserved all of the video of its employee … physically threatening plaintiff on 7/5/16.”[5] On the day of the incident the employee who threatened Plaintiff was terminated. Subsequently, all the others who were employed on the day of the incident have either resigned (the manager on 4/19/17) or terminated their employment.

         Based upon Defendants' responses and the depositions already scheduled by Plaintiff the court will deny the motion. Plaintiff is scheduled to depose Kelly Valdez, the employee who preserved the video evidence, the manager on the day of the incident and the three other employees who were involved on that day. In addition to the discovery responses already given, the testimony of these witnesses should provide the answers Plaintiff seeks regarding the video evidence. Defendants need not designate a rule 30(b)(6) witness “to testify regarding their spoliation/selective preservation of video evidence…”[6]

         II. Other 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics

         In addition, Plaintiff seeks the designation of a 30(b)(6) witness on the following topics:

11. Authenticate Salt Lake Police Department General Offense Print Synopsis (unless authenticity and admissibility can be stipulated)
15. Acquisition/possession of Salt Lake Police Department report of officer Chad Smith; Companies' use of report; and Companies' actions taken in response to report information
16. Authenticate 7/5/16 911 call recording (unless authenticity and admissibility can be stipulated)
17. Acquisition/possession of 7/5/16 911 call recording; Companies' use of recording; and actions taken in response to recording

         In support Plaintiff argues that a “corporate designee must provide responsive answers even if the information was transmitted ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.