Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Dept., 2008 WL 142869 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Deciding various motions in limine, court found that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence relating to destruction of surveillance videotape to demonstrate that adverse inference instruction was not barred as a matter of law; court further granted plaintiff?s motion to re-open discovery for limited purpose of conducting focused three-hour deposition of particular individual who was most knowledgeable about defendant?s video surveillance system

Nature of Case: Lebanese nightclub patron brought civil rights action against municipality, police department, and certain employees and owners of nightclub

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.