Flores v. Surge & InMusic

BRIAN FLORES 355 Record St. Reno, NV 89512 775-412-7470 bmanflores11@gmail.com Plaintiff, Pro Se IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE BRIAN FLORES, | CASE NO: ____________________ | Plaintiff, | DEPT NO: ____________________ | v. | | MOTION FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS SURGE STAFFING, LLC, and | IN MUSIC BRANDS, INC., | | Defendants. | ____________________________________| COMES NOW, Plaintiff, BRIAN FLORES, appearing Pro Se, and hereby moves this Court for an order imposing sanctions against Defendants SURGE STAFFING, LLC and IN MUSIC BRANDS, INC. for the spoliation of critical evidence. This Motion is based upon the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all pleadings and papers on file herein. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff was terminated from his assignment at InMusic Brands immediately after reporting a workplace safety hazard involving an aggressive employee, "Gil," who was verbally assaulting a veteran coworker, Kameron Noble. 2. On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff sent formal Demand Letters via USPS Certified Mail to both Defendants (Surge Staffing, LLC and InMusic Brands, Inc.). 3. These Demand Letters contained an express "NOTICE OF LITIGATION HOLD" requiring the immediate preservation of all surveillance footage, digital records, supervisor notes, and any other evidence regarding the February 17, 2026 incident and Plaintiff's termination. 4. The certified mail receipts confirm delivery to both Defendants on or before [DATE]. 5. On [INSERT DATE OF DISCOVERY], Plaintiff learned through discovery responses that Defendants failed to preserve the requested surveillance footage from the warehouse floor for February 17, 2026. 6. This surveillance footage constitutes critical, potentially dispositive evidence that would have shown: a. Gil initiating unprovoked verbal aggression against Kameron Noble; b. Plaintiff's non-involvement in the altercation; c. Plaintiff calmly observing and then reporting to management; d. That Defendants' characterization of Plaintiff as the "aggressor" is false and pretextual. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 7. Nevada law recognizes that a party has a duty to preserve evidence when they know or should know that the evidence is relevant to future litigation. Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 450 (2006). 8. Spoliation occurs when a party intentionally or negligently fails to preserve such evidence. The duty to preserve arises when litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated. Fire Ins. Exch. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 103 Nev. 648, 651 (1987). 9. In this case, Defendants' duty to preserve arose no later than February 17, 2026, when Plaintiff was terminated under disputed circumstances, or at the absolute latest on [DATE], when they received formal litigation hold notices via certified mail. 10. Under NRS 47.250(3), there is a disputable presumption that "evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced." This presumption applies squarely here, where Defendants received explicit notice yet failed to preserve critical video evidence. 11. Defendants' failure to preserve the surveillance footage after receiving formal litigation hold notices constitutes, at minimum, negligent spoliation, and given the clarity of the notice, rises to the level of willful or reckless conduct. 12. The spoliated evidence is central to Plaintiff's claims. Without it, Plaintiff is severely prejudiced in his ability to prove: a. That he was not the aggressor; b. That Gil was the sole instigator; c. That Defendants' stated reason for termination is pretextual; d. That Plaintiff's report of a safety hazard was the actual motive for termination. 13. Nevada courts have broad discretion to impose sanctions for spoliation, including: a. An adverse inference instruction to the jury; b. Precluding the spoliating party from offering evidence on the matter; c. Dismissal or default judgment in egregious cases; d. Monetary sanctions, including attorney's fees and costs. See generally Bass-Davis, 122 Nev. at 452. III. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 14. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court impose the following sanctions: a. An adverse inference instruction pursuant to NRS 47.250(3) that the destroyed surveillance footage would have shown: (1) Gil initiated unprovoked verbal aggression against Kameron Noble; (2) Plaintiff was not involved in any aggressive conduct; (3) Plaintiff acted as a peacekeeper and reporter of workplace hazards; (4) Defendants' characterization of Plaintiff as the "aggressor" is false; b. An order precluding Defendants from offering any testimony or evidence characterizing Plaintiff as the "aggressor" or as having used profanity during the February 17, 2026 incident; c. An order requiring Defendants to pay reasonable costs associated with bringing this motion; d. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the Motion for Spoliation Sanctions and enter the requested relief. DATED this ____ day of __________________, 20____. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ BRIAN FLORES Plaintiff, Pro Se 355 Record St. Reno, NV 89512 (775) 412-7470 bmanflores11@gmail.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this ____ day of __________________, 20____, a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS was served upon the following parties via [check one]: ___ By depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: ___ By personal delivery: ___ By electronic mail: SURGE STAFFING, LLC 940 West Moana Lane, Suite 103 Reno, NV 89509 IN MUSIC BRANDS, INC. 1190 Trademark Dr. Reno, NV 89521 ________________________________ BRIAN FLORES