Reed v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Plaintiff filed a motion for spoliation sanctions against the Defendant for failing to preserve body camera footage. The Plaintiff, a cruise passenger, alleged that another cruise passenger, John Doe, caused the plaintiff to fall and fracture her wrist when dancing with her on the cruise. John Doe was interviewed by a cruise security office after the incident. The plaintiff asserted the security officer’s video would show John Doe’s inebriated conduction. The defendant asserted that no video existed because the officer did not turn on his camera.

As remedies for the Defendant’s alleged failure, the Plaintiff sought the exclusion of other video evidence, or, as an alternative, a jury instruction allowing the jury to find that, if the jury believes that Defendant negligently failed to preserve the body camera footage, the jury could presume that the body camera footage would have shown that the male passenger demonstrated unruly, erratic, intoxicated, and dangerous behavior at the time of his interview.

The Court denied the motion on the grounds that the plaintiff did not meet her initial burden of showing that the body camera footage ever existed. The defendant’s corporate officer testified that there was no video, and the security officer testified that he could not recall turning on his video camera. The officer would have required John Doe’s permission to videotape the interview pursuant to company policy. The plaintiff never proffered any testimony that the plaintiff’s permission was requested.

As to the plaintiff’s first requested remedy, the Court held that, even if the plaintiff had been able to meet her burden of proof with respect to spoliation sanctions under Rule 37(e), the court would not have been inclined to grant the type of relief sought by the Plaintiff because it was not reasonably related to curing the alleged harm caused.

Regarding the plaintiff’s alternative remedy, the Court held that the plaintiff presented no evidence which would support a finding that the defendant acted with the intent to deprive the plaintiff of use in the litigation of the body camera interview footage.

COURT’S ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY COURT’S ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF FILING