Destroying Evidence Gets Houston Sanctioned in Prisoner-Rights Class Action
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt found that the city intentionally destroyed evidence and made deliberate mischaracterizations to the court. He ruled that the putative class, consisting of thousands of individuals formerly detained in the city jail, is now entitled to an adverse inference at trial.
August 31, 2018 at 05:10 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge in the Southern District of Texas has hit the City of Houston with discovery sanctions in a lawsuit accusing it of failure to provide timely probable cause hearings for warrantless arrestees.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt found that the city intentionally destroyed evidence and made deliberate mischaracterizations to the court. He ruled that the putative class, consisting of thousands of individuals formerly detained in the city jail, is now entitled to an adverse inference at trial.
Hoyt ruled that the city, in Hernandez v. City of Houston, maintained an unconstitutional policy for the entirety of the two-year class period. And Houston's key policymakers were aware of that policy, but acted with deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional harm that resulted, the judge found.
Although no class has been certified, lawyers for the class see the ruling as a major advance.
According to Amanda Elbogen, part of a team from Kirkland & Ellis that represents the class, the decision effectively limits the remainder of the case to the question of damages.
Hoyt said an adverse inference finding is appropriate under Compaq Comput. Corp. v. Ergonome Inc., a 2004 case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that such a sanction cures a discovery violation without inflicting additional costs on the parties.
Hoyt said Houston intentionally destroyed evidence by erasing hard drives from computers used by three records custodians, even though the city knew the drives contained evidence that was material to the litigation, and that spoliation was an affront to discovery rules and court orders.
The city made multiple misrepresentations to the court about its discovery process, according to Hoyt. Among them were its claim that it needed to review 2.6 million documents in response to the plaintiffs' discovery requests. That claim was contradicted by an affidavit showing that far fewer documents—78,702—were retrieved in a search based on court-ordered terms, the judge said. The city also falsely represented to the court that it instituted a litigation hold after the suit was filed, he said.
The suit seeks compensatory damages on behalf of a class: those arrested without a warrant and detained by the city without a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours. The proposed class period is from two years before the filing of the complaint, in December 2016, up until the date of an order granting class certification.
Besides Elbogen, Kirkland's team on the case includes Christine Payne, from Chicago, focusing on e-discovery, as well as Anna Rotman and Patrick King in the Houston office, and Alex Zuckerman in New York.
The firm partnered with Charlie Gerstein at Civil Rights Corps in Washington.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All11 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
3 minute readEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 2Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 3Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 4Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 5Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250