Nance v. Wayne County
264 F.R.D. 331, 2009 WL 3332998, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96278 (2009)
Rule of Law:
A party cannot be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) for failing to disclose or produce documents that are genuinely lost and thus not in its "possession, custody, or control" as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), nor for denying a request for admission if the denial was based on a reasonable misunderstanding and caused no substantial harm. However, a court may still allow an adverse inference instruction at trial for lost evidence if facts warrant it.
Facts:
- In June 2007, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident, including a complex femur fracture, head trauma, ruptured spleen, collapsed lung, and fractured ribs, requiring treatment at Vanderbilt Medical Center.
- Plaintiff was discharged from Vanderbilt with instructions to return if he experienced specific symptoms related to his incisions and right leg.
- In July 2007, Plaintiff was incarcerated in Wayne County Jail, still requiring a walker to ambulate.
- By mid-August 2007, Plaintiff began experiencing pain, swelling, redness, and numbness in his right thigh and hip.
- Plaintiff, his mother, and Vanderbilt medical staff informed jail personnel of Plaintiff's need for follow-up care, but jail officials allegedly refused to schedule or transfer him for an appointment.
- Shortly after complaining of leg symptoms, Plaintiff fell in the shower at the jail due to lack of access to his walker, injuring his left collarbone and/or shoulder.
- Plaintiff reported his collarbone/shoulder pain to the Jail Administrator but received no meaningful assessment or treatment, and was denied over-the-counter Tylenol provided by his mother.
- A separate medical file documenting Plaintiff's medical care received while housed at the Wayne County Jail existed but became lost and could not be located by the time litigation commenced.
- Plaintiff was prescribed Ibuprofen 800 mg daily during his incarceration at Wayne County Jail, but his medication log indicated it was discontinued on September 6, 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inadequate medical treatment while incarcerated.
- Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37."
- A Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions be denied.
- Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a defendant's failure to disclose or produce a medical file that is genuinely lost and unlocatable constitute a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) warranting sanctions under Rule 37(c)? 2. Does a defendant's denial of a request for admission, based on a reasonable misunderstanding of ambiguous language, warrant sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(2) when the information was otherwise known and no substantial expense was incurred in proving the matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert L. Echols
No, a defendant's failure to disclose or produce a genuinely lost medical file does not violate Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) for purposes of Rule 37(c) sanctions, nor does a denial of a request for admission based on a reasonable misunderstanding warrant sanctions. The court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), as it concerned a non-dispositive discovery matter. Regarding the missing medical file, the court affirmed that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) mandates disclosure only of documents in a party's "possession, custody, or control" and which the party "may use to support its claims or defenses." The court reasoned that documents that are genuinely lost or missing are not considered to be in a party's "possession, custody, or control," citing Dunn v. TWA, Inc. and Steil v. Humana Kansas City, Inc. Defendants also presented affidavits asserting the file was missing and not deliberately hidden. Furthermore, Defendants did not intend to use the missing medical file to support their claims or defenses, thus failing the second prong of the Rule 26 disclosure requirement. The court also found that Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production did not clearly request the specific medical file. Because the documents were lost, Defendants could not produce them. Regarding Request for Admission No. 10, the court found the denial was based on a reasonable misunderstanding by defense counsel, who interpreted "throughout his stay" as meaning "never received any Ibuprofen" rather than "received Ibuprofen each day." The court noted that Defendants had already produced documents (MAR Sheets and Jail Logs) making it clear that Plaintiff did not receive Ibuprofen daily, so the information was already known to Plaintiff. Sanctions were deemed unwarranted under Rule 37(c)(2) as Plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial expenses incurred in proving the matter true. The court explicitly modified the R&R, rejecting the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the jury should not be instructed on non-disclosure, and affirmed that Plaintiff could still be entitled to an adverse inference instruction at trial if facts supporting spoliation (such as negligence in losing the file) were proven, citing Adkins v. Wolever. Finally, the court denied Defendants' request for attorney's fees, concluding that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions was "substantially justified" and an award of fees would be unjust.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limitations of discovery sanctions when evidence is genuinely lost. It establishes that a party generally cannot be sanctioned under Rule 37(c) for failing to produce documents not within its current "possession, custody, or control," even if they were once possessed. However, the ruling concurrently emphasizes that the possibility of an adverse inference instruction for lost evidence (spoliation) remains, allowing a remedy for evidentiary prejudice if the loss stems from fault. This distinction is critical for understanding the scope of discovery obligations versus the consequences of lost evidence, placing a burden on the party seeking sanctions to prove control and intent, while still providing avenues for relief for the prejudiced party.
