Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
William Pasiecznik alleged that a Home Depot loss-prevention employee used unreasonable force during an apprehension and caused serious neck and back injuries. The Nevada federal court entered summary judgment for Home Depot, relying heavily on photographs and recorded jail calls that undermined parts of Pasiecznik’s account.
Pasiecznik also sought sanctions over deleted surveillance footage and alleged contacts between defense counsel and his medical experts.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit reversed the causation portion of summary judgment and remanded. Although objective evidence contradicted some alleged injuries, it did not conclusively disprove internal neck and back injuries, and the district court had to address supporting expert opinions. Treating the jail calls as proof that Pasiecznik fabricated all injuries improperly crossed into credibility weighing reserved for the factfinder.
The panel affirmed denial of spoliation relief because there was no evidence that outside footage captured the incident and no showing that deletion of inside footage harmed the claim. It also affirmed the sanctions ruling because the asserted improper communications lacked firsthand evidentiary support.
Key Takeaways
- Objective evidence defeats testimony at summary judgment only when it clearly contradicts the relevant factual assertion.
- Expert opinion can itself create a genuine factual dispute on medical causation.
- Courts may not resolve witness credibility at summary judgment.
- Spoliation requires a showing that loss of the evidence damaged the party’s ability to litigate.
Why It Matters
The memorandum is nonprecedential, but it is a practical reminder for California federal litigators to connect each item of objective evidence to each claimed injury. Evidence undermining one part of a plaintiff’s story does not automatically erase medically supported injuries that the evidence does not address.