Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Hoffer sued the city of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, and various individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, alleging the officers used excessive force when arresting him. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in the officers' favor. Hoffer appealed the judgment, arguing the district court erred in denying his request for an adverse inference instruction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2), based on a missing video of him being tased. On appeal, the parties disputed the standard applicable to requests for adverse inference instructions under Rule 37(e)(2).
The Second Circuit held that to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2), a district court or a jury must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a party acted with an "intent to deprive" another party of the lost information. Consistent with this holding, the court further held the lesser "culpable state of mind" standard, which includes negligence,1 was no longer applicable for imposing Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions for lost electronically stored information (ESI).
Hoffer v. City of Yonkers, et al. Background
Plaintiff-appellant commenced a ' 1983 suit against the city of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, and various individual police officers alleging, among other things, that the officers used excessive force during his 2016 arrest. A trial was held in 2021 on the claims against the individual police officers (collectively, the officer defendants), where differing accounts of the arrest were offered into evidence. There was no dispute that plaintiff was tased two times. However, each taser generates a log, which reflects each use of the taser. And while the log for the date in issue reflected two deployments, they were hours apart: the first at 4:16 p.m., when the officer tested the taser at the beginning of his shift, and the second at 8:02 p.m., lasting eight seconds, which the officer testified corresponded to the secondtime he tased plaintiff. The log also reflected an event at 10:24 p.m. titled "USB Connected," that apparently corresponded to the taser syncing to an external device.
There was also testimony that each taser deployment generates a video. However, the testimony established that only video of the second deployment was available because the video of the first deployment "had somehow been overwritten." No further explanation was provided as to the first video's absence. Plaintiff's girlfriend testified that, when she was at the police station after plaintiff's arrest, she saw one officer holding...
