# Jones

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · August 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11414388

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerome Jones v. State of Louisiana, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** August 12, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11414388

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JEROME JONES CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. NO. 24-00363-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration Of Motion For
Finding Of Spoliation (Doc. 47), which the Court construes as a renewed Motion
For Spoliation. Defendants oppose the Motion. (Doc. 49). Plaintiff filed a Reply Brief.
(Doc. 78). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 47) is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, an incarcerated person at Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”),
alleges that he was subject to excessive force by LSP officials on October 19, 2022,
forming the basis for this case. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff contends that LSP cameras captured the encounter. (Doc. 27 at 1).
Plaintiff allegedly submitted an ARP grievance on the day of the alleged altercation,
requested that LSP officials review the video footage.1 (Doc. 27-2 at 2). A disciplinary
hearing regarding the altercation was held on October 25, 2022. (Doc. 47 at 1).

1 During the July 23, 2026 motion hearing, the parties debated over when the ARP grievance
was submitted. The ARP grievance is dated October 19, 2022 by Plaintiff, but bears a stamp
reflecting receipt by LSP’s Legal Programs Department on December 8, 2022. The date that
the ARP was submitted is still contested. See Doc. 85 at 2.
Defendants aver that no video footage has been found. (Doc. 27-4 at 3). In
January 2026, Plaintiff moved for spoliation and an adverse inference instruction.
(Doc. 27). In April 2026, the Magistrate Judge held a motion hearing, where he denied

the motion without prejudice. (Doc. 39). He concluded that because the record was
incomplete, Plaintiff had not met his burden of showing that Defendants acted in bad
faith with an intent to deprive Plaintiff of the video evidence. (Id.). However, the
Magistrate Judge specifically instructed that the ruling would not preclude further
litigation on the issue. (Id.).
In June 2026, Plaintiff obtained an audio recording from the October 25, 2022

disciplinary hearing. (Doc. 47-2 at 1). In the audio recording of the disciplinary
hearing, Mr. Jones purportedly requested that the October 19, 2022 video be
reviewed. (Id.).2
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on June 16, 2026, contending that the newly-
obtained audio recording entitled him to a spoliation finding and an adverse inference
instruction. (Doc. 47 at 1). Although the instant Motion was submitted as a Motion
for Reconsideration, because the Magistrate Judge dismissed the first spoliation

motion without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to re-urge it, the Court construes the
instant motion as a renewed Motion for Spoliation.
The Court held a hearing on the instant Motion in July 2026. At that hearing,
the following was established: (1) Defendants conceded that at the disciplinary
hearing, Plaintiff, or at least his counsel substitute, suggested that the video should

2 At the July 2026 motion hearing, Defendants conceded that at the disciplinary hearing,
Plaintiff, or at least his counsel substitute, suggested that the video should be reviewed.
be reviewed; (2) the Court made a finding of the same; (3) according to Defendants,
no portion of the disciplinary hearing transcript suggested that LSP reviewed the
video; (4) Defendants were not aware which steps, if any, LSP definitively took to

preserve the video; (5) Defendants explained that video systems at LSP, including the
cameras at issue, automatically overwrite themselves after thirty days in order to
preserve electronic storage space.
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s renewed Motion, contending Plaintiff has not
provided evidence warranting an adverse inference instruction.
II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(e) governs the loss of electronically
stored information (“ESI”):
If electronically stored information that should have been
preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost
because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve
it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional
discovery, the court:

(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the
information, may order measures no greater than
necessary to cure the prejudice; or
(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent
to deprive another party of the information’s use in the
litigation may:
(A) presume that the lost information was
unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the
information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Courts may order either: (1) remedial measures “no greater than necessary to
cure the prejudice” under Rule 37(e)(1); or (2) more onerous measures under Rule
37(e)(2), but “only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another
party of the information’s use in the litigation[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e.
Rule 37(e)(1)’s curative measures include “permitting the parties to present

evidence and argument to the jury regarding the loss of information, or giving the
jury instructions to assist in its evaluation of such evidence or argument[.]” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(e), Advisory Comm. Notes, 2015. Rule 37(e)(2) curative measures authorize
the Court to “presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; instruct
the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party;
or dismiss the action or enter default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). Measures

under Rule 37(e)(1) should “not have the effect of” the more onerous Rule 37(e)(2)
measures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), Advisory Comm. Notes, 2015.
III. DISCUSSION
In the Motion for Spoliation, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an adverse
presumption for lost LSP video footage. (Doc. 47). As noted, Plaintiff asserts he asked
LSP to review the video footage on two occasions: in his ARP, dated October 19, 2022,
and at his October 25, 2022 disciplinary hearing, but the video evidence was not

preserved. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion, arguing that the renewed Motion
does not offer any more evidence of bad faith on the part of Defendants than Plaintiff’s
original motion. The Court will analyze whether Plaintiff is entitled to Rule 37(e)(1)
curative measures before addressing whether Plaintiff is entitled to the more
burdensome Rule 37(e)(2) curative measures.
A. Rule 37(e)(1).
Curative measures under Rule 37(e)(1) are available if ESI “(1) should have
been preserved for litigation, and (2) because of a failure to take reasonable steps to

preserve, (3) is lost, (4) cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery,
and (5) the loss prejudices another party.” Owens v.
Bd. Of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & Agric. & Mech. Coll., 695 F. Supp. 3d 750,
756 (M.D. La. 2023). In addition, any curative measures must be “no greater than
necessary.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1).
Here, the third and fourth elements are not in genuine dispute: the video is

lost, and nothing in the record suggests that it can be restored or replaced through
additional discovery. Therefore, the Court must ascertain whether: (1) the video
should have been preserved; (2) whether its loss resulted from LSP’s failure to take
reasonable steps to preserve it; and (3) whether the loss of the video prejudices
Plaintiff.
1. Duty To Preserve.
“A party’s duty to preserve evidence comes into being when the party has notice

that the evidence is relevant to the litigation or should have known that the evidence
may be relevant.” Guzman v. Jones, 804 F.3d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 2015). “Potential
litigants have a duty to preserve relevant information when litigation is reasonably
foreseeable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), Advisory Comm. Notes, 2015. “[R]easonable notice
of a party’s duty to preserve evidence may arise when the plaintiff files a formal
complaint, informs the defendant that he has retained counsel, threatens litigation,
or requests information relevant to the incident.” Disedare v. Brumfield, No. CV
22-2680, 2024 WL 1526699, at 7 (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2024). “Determining when a duty
to preserve arises in a particular case and the extent of that duty requires careful

analysis of the facts and circumstances presented.” Autin v.
La. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corrs., No. CV 20-1214, 2021 WL 12278996, at 2 (E.D. La.
June 17, 2021).
At the motion hearing, Defendants conceded, and the Court found, that the
Plaintiff requested that the disciplinary board review the video footage during his
October 25, 2022 disciplinary hearing. His request arose in the context of disputing

Defendant Davis’s description of the physical altercation between the two. Plaintiff’s
request for information relevant to the incident put the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety & Corrections (“LDPSC”) on notice of potential litigation and triggered
its duty to preserve the video footage.3
2. Failure To Take Reasonable Steps To Preserve.
Rule 37(e) imposes a duty on parties to litigation “to take reasonable steps to
preserve” ESI. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(e). While Rule 37(e) “does not call for perfection,”

3 Although the date of Plaintiff’s ARP grievance submission is in dispute, a duty to preserve
the footage similarly would attach if the ARP grievance was submitted on the date of the
incident. This Court has held that when an inmate “initiated a grievance against” an officer
“on the same day as the interaction,” the officer “was on notice for potential litigation, which
would require him to take actions to preserve” the video. Johnson v.
La. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corrs., No. 21-595-JWD-RLB, 2025 WL 2553741, at 7 (M.D. La.
Sept. 5, 2025). See also Falkins v. Goings, No. CV 21-1749, 2022 WL 17414295, at 4 (E.D. La.
Dec. 5, 2022) (upholding the Magistrate Judge’s finding that an ARP grievance triggered the
duty to preserve video footage); Autin, 2021 WL 12278996, at 3 (“Negligence flowing from an
unintentional failure of DOC policy and prison officials to recognize that the filing of an ARP
for excessive force, under circumstances alleged here, reasonably triggers the duty to
preserve relevant evidence.”).
courts should “be sensitive to the party’s sophistication with regard to litigation in
evaluating preservation efforts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), Advisory Comm. Notes, 2015.
“[S]ome litigants, particularly individual litigants, may be less familiar with

preservation obligations than others who have considerable experience in litigation.”
Id. Courts are further advised to “be sensitive to party resources[,] [as] aggressive
preservation efforts can be extremely costly, and parties (including governmental
parties) may have limited staff and resources to devote to those efforts.” Id.
The Eastern District of Louisiana has held that because of LDPSC’s
“experience defending against allegations that [LDPSC] officers improperly failed to

preserve ESI[,]” LDPSC “should be familiar with the preservation obligations that
litigation imposes[.]” Disedare, 2024 WL 1526699, at 9. The Eastern District of
Louisiana elaborates that LDPSC’s duty to preserve video footage was not onerous,
“especially given the small number of [] videos requested from a narrow time
period[.]” Id. The court found that despite LDPSC’s surveillance videos being
automatically overwritten after thirty days, LDPSC “acted unreasonably in failing to
preserve all video footage and allowing it to be automatically overwritten.” Id. Given

that there are no material distinguishable facts here, this Court also finds that
LDPSC acted unreasonably in failing to preserve the relevant video footage.
3. Prejudice To Plaintiff.
Rule 37(e)(1) requires that a court make a finding of prejudice before ordering
Rule 37(e)(1) curative measures. “A party suffers prejudice where it cannot present
evidence essential to its underlying claim. Thus, the prejudice inquiry turns on
whether the party seeking sanctions can demonstrate the missing or altered evidence
would have been relevant to proving a claim or defense. Lost or destroyed evidence is
relevant if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the lost evidence would have

supported the claims or defenses of the party that sought it.” Disedare, 2024 WL
1526699, at 10 (cleaned up).
Plaintiff and Defendants disagree as to who initiated the altercation.
Defendant Davis asserts that when Plaintiff “attempted to pull away from [him]”. he
“brought [Plaintiff] to the ground to gain control of the situation.” (Doc. 80 at 3).
Meanwhile, Plaintiff claims that he “was in full restraints and not resisting and

standing against the wall in front of his cell when [Defendant Davis] grabbed [him]
and forcefully threw him to the concrete on his head.” (Id. at 2). The lost video footage
bears directly on Plaintiff’s central claim, and its loss deprives Plaintiff of the only
objective evidence of the altercation. The loss of the video has prejudiced Plaintiff
from presenting evidence essential to support his assertion that Defendant Davis was
not justified in using force on him. See Disedare, 2024 WL 1526699 at 11 (finding that
LDPSC’s loss of video footage prejudiced the inmate plaintiff).

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the requisite elements
for a Rule 37(e)(1) curative measure. See also Falkins v. Goings, No. CV 21-1749,
2022 WL 17414295, at 4 (E.D. La. Dec. 5, 2022) (affirming the Magistrate Judge’s
order, which found all Rule 37(e)(1) elements existed when LDPSC failed to preserve
video of an alleged altercation between the plaintiff and LDPSC officials).
B. Rule 37(e)(2).
Having established that Plaintiff has met the threshold requirements for Rule
37(e)(1) curative measures, the Court turns to whether Plaintiff is entitled to Rule

37(e)(2) curative measures. Rule 37(e)(2) applies when the court finds “that the party
acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the
litigation[,]” but unlike Rule 37(e)(1), “does not include a requirement that the court
find prejudice to the party deprived of the information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), Advisory
Comm. Notes, 2015.
The Fifth Circuit “permits an adverse inference against the destroyer of

evidence only upon a showing of ‘bad faith’ or ‘bad conduct.’” Condrey v.
SunTrust Bank of Ga., 431 F.3d 191, 203 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing King v.
Ill. Cent. R.R., 337 F.3d 550, 556 (5th Cir. 2003)). Bad faith in this context “generally
means destruction for the purpose of hiding adverse evidence.” Guzman,
804 F.3d at 713. “Typically, we do not draw an inference of bad faith when documents
are destroyed under a routine policy.” Russell v. Univ. of Tex. Of the Permian Basin,
234 F. App’x 195, 208 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Vick v. Tex. Emp’t Comm’n, 514 F.2d 734,

737 (5th Cir. 1975)). Courts should not give “adverse-inference instructions on a
finding of negligence or gross negligence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), Advisory Comm.
Notes, 2015. Rather, a party seeking an adverse inference must establish that “the
[spoliating] party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s
use in the litigation.” Ford v. Anderson Cnty., 102 F.4th 292, 323–24 (5th Cir. 2024)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2)); see also United States v. Martinez, 131 F.4th 294,
315 (5th Cir. 2025) (reaffirming that bad faith “generally means destruction for the
purpose of hiding adverse evidence”).
The disciplinary hearing audio recording establishes that Defendant requested

for the disciplinary board to review the video footage. While the audio recording
further supports Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants should have been on notice of
potential litigation, it does not provide evidence of bad faith on the part of Defendants
under the applicable standard. Plaintiff argues that LSP’s failure to retain the video
footage is evidence of bad faith because while La. R.S. 15:1172(b)(1) and La. Admin.
Code tit. 22, pt. I, § 325 (g)(1) grant inmates a period of ninety days to file ARP

grievances after an incident. However, as Defendants admit, LSP has a practice of
only preserving video footage for thirty days. The failure to retain the video footage
for those ninety days, says Plaintiff, is “a deliberate decision to destroy evidence.”
(Doc. 47-2).
The law does not support Plaintiff’s contention. In Schreane v. Beemon, a
prison’s cameras overwrote surveillance video after a period of fifteen to thirty days,
pursuant to prison policy, unless a prison official identified specific footage relating

to an incident warranting investigation. 575 F. App’x 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014). The
Fifth Circuit found that LDSPC did not act in bad faith when a video recording was
not preserved because there was no evidence that any official with knowledge of the
plaintiff’s complaints had ever viewed the footage or was involved in the decision to
record over the tape. Id. at 491. Cf. Disedare, 2024 WL 1526699, at 13 (delaying, but
not denying, the issuance of an adverse inference instruction when there was
evidence that the defendant reviewed video footage from multiple cameras prior to
the deletion of some video footage, potentially “selectively preserv[ing] only that
which he decided best supported his actions”).

Plaintiff here does not offer evidence that the video was reviewed, nor that
anyone who received the request to review the tape had connection to the decision to
override the tape. Indeed, at the motion hearing, Defendants clarified that no portion
of the disciplinary hearing transcript suggested that LSP reviewed the video.
Accordingly, under Fifth Circuit precedent, the Court cannot find bad faith on the
part of Defendants, and therefore cannot order a Rule 37(e)(2) curative measure.

C. Appropriate Curative Measures.
As discussed, Rule 37(e)(1) curative measures are appropriate here. They must
be “no greater than necessary.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1). Curative measures include
“permitting the parties to present evidence and argument to the jury regarding the
loss of information, or giving the jury instructions to assist in its evaluation of such
evidence or argument[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1).
Here, the following Rule 37(e)(1) measures are appropriate: the parties may

present evidence and argument to the jury regarding the video’s existence, the
requests for its review, and its non-preservation; and the jury will be instructed that
Defendants were under a duty to preserve the video and failed to do so. See Disadare,
2024 WL 1526699, at 16 (allowing the plaintiff “to present evidence and argument to
the jury regarding the loss of the ESI” and instructing the jury “that the Defendants
were under a duty to preserve the ESI but failed to do so”). However, because Plaintiff
did not satisfy his burden to prove bad faith on the part of Defendants, as required
for Rule 37(e)(2) curative measures, the Court will not presume that the lost video
was unfavorable to Defendants and will not instruct the jury that it may or must
presume that the lost video was unfavorable to Defendants.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration Of Motion
For Finding Of Spoliation (Doc. 47) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART, as set forth herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 37(e)(1):
(a) The parties may present evidence and argument to the jury regarding the
tier video’s existence, Plaintiffs requests for its review, and its non-
preservation;
(b) The jury will be instructed that Defendants were under a duty to preserve
the video and failed to take reasonable steps to do so; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks
a Rule 37(e)(2) curative measure in the form of an adverse presumption or jury
instruction.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 11th day of August, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11414388. Public record. Not legal advice.