William H. PORTER, Plaintiff, v. Alex M. AZAR II, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant Civil Action No. 16-2464 (TJK) United States District Court, District of Columbia Signed September 01, 2019 Counsel William H. Porter, Upper Marlboro, MD, Pro Se. Brenda A. Gonzalez Horowitz, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Daniel Patrick Schaefer, Esbrook P.C., Washington, DC, Sam Escher, DOJ-USAO, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant. Kelly, Timothy J., United States District Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court are Plaintiff William Porter's Objections to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson's Memorandum Order denying his Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. Because Plaintiff fails to show that Magistrate Judge Robinson's conclusions were either clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court affirms the Order over his objections. However, upon review of a document Plaintiff has moved to add to the record since Magistrate Judge Robinson's ruling, the Court will order Defendant to submit a supplemental affidavit to confirm that it has complied with its discovery obligations. * * * On June 13, 2019, following a hearing attended by both parties, Magistrate Judge Robinson denied Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. ECF No. 38. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may file objections or seek reconsideration of a pretrial decision by a magistrate judge on a nondispositive matter within 14 days of the ruling. The district judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the ruling, ECF No. 39, and Defendant filed a response, ECF No. 40. The Court heard oral argument on Plaintiff's objections at a July 9, 2019 status hearing. Plaintiff raises six points in opposition to Magistrate Judge Robinson's Memorandum Order, which, read together, form two core objections to it. See ECF No. 39. First, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Robinson's finding that he failed to establish that Defendant either destroyed or permitted the spoliation of evidence. ECF No. 39 ¶¶ 1, 3, 5. The evidence at issue consists of (1) bills discarded by a former supervisor that Plaintiff purportedly “messed up” in paying or handling, id. ¶ 1; (2) documents related to Plaintiff's application for a Top Secret security clearance, id. ¶ 3; and (3) documents related to a fitness-for-duty examination that Defendant conducted, id. ¶ 5. A party seeking sanctions for the spoliation of evidence must show, among other things, that the evidence was relevant to that party's claims or defenses, that the individual alleged to have destroyed the evidence should have reasonably known that it should be preserved, and that the individual possessed a “culpable state of mind” during the destruction. Mahaffey v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 54, 60–62 (D.D.C. 2012). Upon review of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in support of this objection, the Court cannot conclude that Magistrate Judge Robinson's decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. To the contrary, it appears that Plaintiff failed to put forward evidence sufficient to meet the above standard. Second, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Robinson erred in limiting the definition of “spoliation” to cover only the destruction of relevant documents, rather than the deliberate withholding such documents. ECF No. 39 ¶ 2. For starters, Plaintiff is simply wrong about the meaning of the word “spoliation,” which is defined as “the destruction or material alteration of evidence or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” Mahaffey, 898 F. Supp. 2d at 58 (quoting Chen v. District of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 2d 7, 12 (D.D.C. 2011)). That point aside, Magistrate Judge Robinson concluded that Plaintiff did not show that Defendant “failed to answer [his] interrogatories and to produce documents responsive to [his] requests for production of documents.” ECF No. 38 at 2. That broad language covers allegations that Defendant both destroyed documents and failed to produce documents in its possession. And Plaintiff presents no authority from which the Court could conclude that Magistrate Judge Robinson otherwise erred in her application of the term “spoliation,” or the relevant law.[1] *2* * * Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Supplement the Record, which he argues relates to his allegation that Defendant improperly destroyed, or at least has failed to produce, documents related to his application for a Top Secret security clearance. ECF No. 40. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion, which Defendant has not opposed. The motion does not help him show that Magistrate Judge Robinson's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law on the record before her, but it does raise some questions as to whether Plaintiff has received all the discovery to which he is entitled. Plaintiff supplements the record with an April 24, 2013 letter from Kevin C. Todd, a security manager at Defendant's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, which appears to relate to the results of some investigation—either Plaintiff's fitness-for-duty examination or his application for a security clearance. ECF No. 40, Ex. 1. On its face, the letter appears to suggest that at least at some point, Defendant possessed documents related to the investigation, even if another agency—the Office of Personnel Management—actually conducted it. Whatever investigation it relates to, the Court will order Defendant to provide a supplemental affidavit to confirm that it has complied with its discovery obligations with regard to that investigation. For all the above reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED and Magistrate Judge Robinson's Memorandum Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, ECF No. 38, is AFFIRMED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall submit, by September 25, 2019, an affidavit from an employee of Defendant (1) confirming that Defendant searched for documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests for production of documents related to the investigation referenced in the April 24, 2013 letter, and specifically, that it searched for such documents in the Security component of its Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; (2) explaining whether Defendant produced any responsive documents to Plaintiff, along with a brief description of those documents; and (3) explaining whether—in light of the contents of the April 24, 2013 letter—it previously had responsive documents in its possession that were not produced to the Plaintiff, and if so, when and under what circumstances those documents became unavailable to it. SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Plaintiff also requests that the Court permit him to conduct depositions on the topic of spoliation. ECF No. 39 ¶ 6. The Court declines to do so. Plaintiff had the opportunity to gather evidence of potential spoliation throughout discovery, which is now closed.