Benjamin Robert Gallegos v. Saavedra, et al.

Opinion

BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS, No. 2:24-cv-02777-DC-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER SAAVEDRA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks an order compelling the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to preserve various categories of evidence. ECF Nos. 7, 8. Because the court has identified a potential claim, the parties have a duty to preserve evidence that they “know or reasonably should know is relevant to the action.” In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (internal citations omitted). A court order is not necessary to trigger this duty. Defense counsel has responded to the motions with a representation that, following the court’s order directing service of the complaint, “the Attorney General’s Office sent letters to all involved state employees, departments, and offices, ordering them to preserve all records, documents, videos, and other evidence related to this case.” ECF No. 21. Shortly after the letters issued, a litigation coordinator with the state prisons collected all relevant evidence and transmitted it to the Attorney General’s Office. Id. Accordingly, an order directing CDCR to preserve evidence does not appear necessary, and plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 7 and 8) are DENIED. Should plaintiff discover that relevant evidence has been destroyed, he may seek appropriate sanctions. See Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006). So ordered. Dated: February 12, 2026