In Bonilla v. Gerlach, No. CIV 23-1060-R (W.D. Okla. May 2, 2025), Oklahoma District Judge David L. Russell granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for spoliation of video evidence in part, ruling that “permitting limited evidence and argument to the jury explaining that there was additional video surveillance showing Mr. Bonilla during his detention but Defendants did not preserve the video is an appropriate measure to cure the prejudice to Plaintiff.”

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

This case involved Defendants alleged failure to provide Mario Bonilla with adequate medical care (after he fell down a flight of stairs and subsequently died) while he was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at the Grady County Law Enforcement Center. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions related to surveillance video from the Grady County jail during the time of Bonilla’s incarceration. The only video surveillance preserved and produced by Defendants was a set of clips showing the moments immediately before and after Bonilla’s fall. Plaintiff sought sanctions against Defendants for failing to preserve additional surveillance video of Mr. Bonilla’s incarceration, which he contended would have shown the day-by-day degradation of Bonilla’s medical condition.

In considering Defendant’s duty to preserve, Judge Russell stated: “Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that Defendant was on notice that litigation was reasonably likely following Mr. Bonilla’s death. Defendants had knowledge that Mr. Bonilla’s death occurred several days after he suffered a fall while in Defendants’ custody. Defendants obviously recognized that Mr. Bonilla’s fall had some significance to his death as they investigated and retained portions of the surveillance video leading up to the fall…Defendants were also aware that in-custody deaths are the kind of incident that is likely to trigger litigation. The Grady County Criminal Justice Authority’s corporate representatives conceded as much…While there may be situations where the circumstances surrounding a detainee’s in-custody death does not put a party on notice that litigation is reasonably foreseeable, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Bonilla’s death – several days after a fall and multiple medical visits – were such that Defendants knew or should have known that litigation was likely.”

Continuing, he said: “Defendants argue that, even if there was a duty to preserve some video surveillance, the duty did not extend to any and all video evidence of Mr. Bonilla during his incarceration. That may be so, but what was preserved was insufficient. Despite recognizing the significance of the fall, and being aware that inmate deaths often result in litigation, Defendants retained only a short video clip showing Mr. Bonilla immediately before and after he fell…At the least, video surveillance of Mr. Bonilla’s fall, medical visits, and condition the day he died were within the scope of what should have been preserved as potentially relevant to litigation.”

Judge Russell also determined: “The video surveillance appears to have been deleted or written over and there is no way to reproduce the video…Defendants do not genuinely dispute that they failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the video evidence or that the video surveillance cannot be restored.” And he rejected Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the loss of the video because the evidence was not relevant and Plaintiff could not establish that it would be favorable to his position, stating: “This argument strains credulity. Plaintiff’s asserts that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Bonilla’s serious medical needs and that his medical condition visibly deteriorated in the days after his fall. As Plaintiff notes, video surveillance showing Mr. Bonilla’s condition would likely have been ‘the most objective and compelling evidence available to the jury at trial.’…Further, Plaintiff has more than enough extrinsic evidence to demonstrate that the video surveillance would have been favorable to his position.”

Regarding Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants intentionally or willfully allowed the video surveillance to be deleted, and an adverse inference instruction (as outlined in Rule 37(e)(2)) was appropriate, Judge Russell stated: “Although Defendants should have been aware that litigation was likely, and should have preserved more video that what they did, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that anyone acted with the intent to deprive an opposing party of the video. The video appears to have been automatically overwritten and while it may have been negligent, or even grossly negligent, to not preserve the evidence, the Court is not able to conclude that such actions were in bad faith such that an adverse inference instruction is warranted.”

As a result, Judge Russell decided on sanctions as follows: “Here, permitting limited evidence and argument to the jury explaining that there was additional video surveillance showing Mr. Bonilla during his detention but Defendants did not preserve the video is an appropriate measure to cure the prejudice to Plaintiff. The parties may present their positions as to the scope of evidence and argument that should be permitted on the subject at the pre-trial conference.”

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that Plaintiff was allowed to present limited evidence of spoliation with no intent to deprive determined? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.