Belafon Aradon v. Snohomish County

[6] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [7] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE [9] NYLYSHA STARVION BELAFON Case No. C20-1665-RSM-DWC [10] ARADON, et al., 11 ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO Plaintiffs, MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER DKT. 12 #232 13 v. 14 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendant. [16] 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Snohomish County’s Objections to [18] Magistrate Judge Christel’s Order granting in part, denying in part, and deferring in part [19] Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence. Dkt. #240. [20] Snohomish County brings this Motion under Rule 72(a). Rule 72(a) allows a party whose [21] 22 case is before a magistrate judge to “serve and file objections” to an order addressing 23 nondispositive matters. These objections are to be heard by the district judge in the case, who is [24] to “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. [25] R. Civ. P. 72(a). [26] Snohomish County asserts that Judge Christel’s finding “by a preponderance of the [27] 28 evidence that spoliation has occurred by Snohomish County with regard to VGAL Brook’s lost and/or destroyed ESI” was clearly erroneous and contrary to law for three reasons: (1) he based [1] 2 his decision on “partial recitation of foster mother J.B.’s testimony;” (2) potentially missing 3 emails are not relevant to the issues in this case; and (3) Ms. Brook’s lack of opportunity to [4] explain or respond to allegations cannot create a basis for discovery sanctions against the County. [5] Dkt. #240 at 2. [6] Judge Christel’s Order thoroughly and accurately recounted the past procedural history. [7] 8 See Dkt. #232 at 2. The parties are familiar with these facts and the Court will not repeat them. 9 Plaintiffs allege Snohomish County destroyed and/or lost evidence relevant to this case during [10] state court dependency and termination proceedings, which took place in Snohomish County [11] Superior Court between 2013 and 2016. Snohomish County asserts that it has met its preservation [12] 13 and production obligations by producing the entire archived file that existed at the time the 14 Plaintiffs filed a tort claim notice in 2020. 15 First, Snohomish County argues it was clear error for Judge Christel to find spoliation [16] based on partial witness testimony and a recused judge’s observations. Dkt. #240 at 3. Snohomish [17] County responds to Judge Christal’s citation to J.B.’s testimony with, “the record establishes J.B. [18] 19 downloaded the data from her computer, which was saved on a Passport device, which Plaintiffs’ 20 counsel searched.” Id. at 6. There is a difference between a judge failing to cite the record [21] accurately and coming to an unfavorable discretionary decision about whether lost and/or [22] destroyed ESI can be fully reconstructed or obtained through another source. The Court has [23] reviewed Judge Christel’s Order and finds no factual errors. Judge Christel cites additional bases [24] 25 for his Order, including J.B.’s testimony that she engaged in a “double delete” method by deleting 26 email on her home computer and also going into the “Trash” file and again deleting the deleted [27] emails. Dkt. #232 at 18. Similarly, the Court finds no merit in Snohomish County’s assertion that [28] J.B.’s testimony does not support this “double deletion” theory. See Dkt. #240 at 6–7. Even a [1] 2 cursory review of the portion of testimony that Defendants point to in their objection clearly 3 shows that J.B. admitted to double deleting emails. See id. at 7 (quoting Airut Murphy Decl., Ex. [4] A (J.B. Dep.), at 34:8-10). Additionally, Snohomish County’s objection to Judge Christel’s [5] reliance on a recused judge’s conclusions as a basis for determining that ESI was lost and/or [6] destroyed also fails. As partially discussed above, there is enough evidence on the record for [7] 8 Judge Christel to find that ESI was lost and/or destroyed by a preponderance of the evidence. 9 Second, Snohomish County claims that the allegedly missing emails are not relevant to [10] the issues in this case because “there is no factual basis to conclude possible emails between [11] Brook and J.B. could have any probative value in the legal issues involved in this case.” Id. at [12] 13 11. The Court finds no factual errors in Judge Christel’s order regarding the relevancy of the ESI 14 and Plaintiffs’ claims alleging due process violations and state-court negligence claims. 15 Additionally, the issue of how to remedy the spoliation is properly addressed at a forthcoming [16] hearing before Judge Christel. See Dkt. #234. [17] Third, Snohomish County argues it was contrary to law to conclude that it failed to take [18] 19 reasonable steps to preserve VGAL Brook’s ESI prior to her death. Dkt. #240 at 13. In support 20 of its claim, Snohomish County points to The Bermuda, 70 U.S. 514, 541 , 18 L. Ed. 200 (1865), [21] a case in which the Supreme Court recognized that an individual’s destructions of documents [22] does not necessarily give rise to sanctions against the employer when there is no evidence that [23] the employer authorized or benefitted from its employee’s misconduct. Dkt #240 at 13. However, [24] 25 courts have held that “an employee’s misconduct with regard to spoliation can be imputed to an 26 employer.” Hunters Cap., LLC v. City of Seattle, No. C20-0983 TSZ, 2023 WL 184208 (W.D. [27] Wash. Jan. 13, 2023) (citing Colonies Partners, L.P. v. County of San Bernadino, No. 18-cv28 00420, 2020 WL 1496444 , at *10 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2020). Accordingly, Bermuda does not [1] 2 alone demonstrate clear error in this order. 3 Given the above, the Court finds that Snohomish County has failed to demonstrate that [4] Judge Christel’s rulings were clearly erroneous in fact or law. Accordingly, having reviewed the [5] relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, [6] the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant Snohomish County’s Objections to [7] 8 Magistrate Order, Dkt. #240, are DENIED. This matter continues to be referred to Judge Christel. [10] DATED this 31st day of January, 2023. [12] 13 A [14] RICARDO S. MARTINEZ [15] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE