Rodgers v. Valley County - Order on Motion for Spoliation Sanctions

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Janelle Rodgers v. Valley County, Luke Strommen, & John Does 1-3

District Court, D. Montana

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 4:20-cv-00105

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (50.7K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
JANELLE RODGERS,

Plaintiff,
CV-20-105-GF-BMM

vs.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR
VALLEY COUNTY, LUKE STROMMEN,
SANCTIONS ON THE
& JOHN DOES 1-3,
SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Janelle Rodgers filed a motion for sanctions for the spoliation of
evidence. (Doc. 80.) Rodgers argues that the Court should impose the sanction of
default for Defendant Valley County’s (“Valley County”) failure to produce an
anonymous typewritten letter. (Doc. 81 at 7.) Rodgers requests the Court give an
adverse instruction or prohibit Valley County’s expert or witnesses from testifying
as to the reasonableness of its actions in response to the letter as alternative sanctions.
(Id. at 18.) Valley County opposes the motion. (Doc. 92.)
BACKGROUND
Strommen worked as a law enforcement officer for Valley County in
Glasgow, Montana from 2009 until 2018. Rodgers alleged that Strommen sexually
abused her for years, including encounters while Strommen was on duty as a law
1
enforcement officer for Valley County. (Doc. 1 ¶ 6.) Rodgers was under the age of
16 years old at the time. Strommen plead guilty to sexual intercourse without

consent. (Doc. 55 at 1.) Strommen admitted that the sexual intercourse without
consent occurred between September 1, 2009, and January 9, 2011. (Doc. 75 at 1.)
Strommen agreed during his plea colloquy that the sexual encounters with Rodgers

occurred in the following five places: (1) at Strommen’s residence; (2) in a hotel
room in Great Falls, Montana; (3) in Strommen’s patrol car; (4) in Strommen’s
family car; and (5) at Strommen’s friend’s cabin. (Doc. 75 at 5.)
Former Valley County Sheriff, Glen Meier (“Sheriff Meier”), had his

deposition taken on February 8, 2022. (Doc. 82 at 1.) Sheriff Meier referenced
documents that were placed in Luke Strommen’s employee file. (Id. ¶ 1.) Sheriff
Meier indicated that Valley County had received an anonymous letter sometime in

1. (Id.) Sheriff Meier reported that the anonymous letter allegedly referenced that a bystander had overheard two young girls in a bathroom at a basketball game discussing a sexual relationship between a sheriff’s deputy and minor at Glasgow High School. (Id.) Sheriff Meier testified that he later determined that the letter was

referring to Strommen. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Rodgers claims that, despite multiple requests to have Valley County produce
this anonymous letter, Valley County has not provided it to Rodgers. (Doc. 81 at 2.)

Rodgers’s counsel met and conferred with Valley County’s counsel regarding the
2
missing letter. (Doc. 82 at 3.) Valley County’s counsel represented that Valley
County was unable to locate the anonymous letter. (Id.) Rodgers further claims that

Valley County has failed to explain the anonymous letter’s disappearance. (Id.)
Rodgers alleges claims of negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent
supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and vicarious liability against

Valley County. (Doc. 1.) Rodgers asks the Court to enter default against Valley
County as a sanction for the spoliation of the anonymous letter. (Doc. 81 at 7.)
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may sanction a party for spoliation of evidence under its
inherent powers or pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Leon v.

IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006). The party alleging the spoliation
of evidence must establish that the other party destroyed or failed to preserve
evidence and “had ‘some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the

litigation before they were destroyed.’” Ryan v. Editions Ltd. West, Inc., 786 F.3d
754, 766 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d
995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002)).
“[C]ourts have discretion to employ a variety of sanctions, including monetary

sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, civil contempt sanctions, and contempt sanctions.”
MGA Ent., Inc. v. Harris, 2:20-cv-11548-JVS-AGR, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52931,
at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2023). Default represents a harsh sanction that should be
3
used only in extreme circumstances. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court must weigh the following factors before

imposing such a harsh sanction: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution
of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to
the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995). A court also must
make a finding of “willfulness, fault, or bad faith” prior to imposing such a severe
sanction. Leon, 464 F.3d at 958.

DISCUSSION
Rodgers seeks sanctions against Valley County for the spoilation of the
anonymous letter received by Sheriff Meier that indicated that a Valley County
sheriff’s deputy had been engaging in sexual contact with a high school girl. (Doc.

81 at 2.) Sheriff Meier testified in his deposition that he placed the letter in
Strommen’s file and that he had presumed the letter referred to Strommen. (Doc. 82
¶ 1.) Valley County has been unable to produce the letter throughout the litigation.
Rodgers contends that her negligent supervision and negligent retention

claims require her to prove that Valley County had notice of the improper behavior
by Strommen. (Doc. 81 at 10.) Rodgers contends that the anonymous letter proves
paramount to proving that Valley County had notice of Strommen’s inappropriate
4
behavior and the risk that he posed for young girls in the community. (Id. at 10-12.)
Rodgers requests that the Court impose the extreme sanction of dismissal for Valley

County’s spoilation of this evidence. (Id. at 7.) In the alternative, Rodgers asks the
court for an adverse jury instruction or order prohibiting Valley County’s witnesses
from testifying about Valley County’s reasonableness in handling the anonymous

letter. (Id. at 18.)
Sheriff Meier testified that he had received an anonymous letter indicating
that a sheriff’s deputy was having sex with an underage girl. The letter allegedly
reported that the adult had overheard juvenile girls in the bathroom at a basketball

game in Nashua discussing the sexual relationship between the sheriff’s deputy and
a minor at Glasgow High School. Sheriff Meier testified that he received the letter
within the first two years of Strommen’s employment and placed the letter and

envelope in which it was sent in Strommen’s file. Sheriff Meier indicated at one
point that the envelope had a “Glasgow address” but later denied that the letter had
any return address.
Valley County argues that the anonymous letter failed to identify the person

who wrote the letter, the victim, Strommen, or the specific crime and failed to put
Valley County on reasonable notice of potential litigation. (Doc. 92 at 7-8.) Valley
County argues the letter’s unreliability and irrelevancy to Rodger’s claims due to the

fact that the letter was unverified, anonymous, and a secondhand account of a
5
conversation overheard at a basketball game. (Id.) Valley County continues to argue
that Sheriff Meier retracted much of his testimony that connected the anonymous

letter to Strommen, including that Sheriff Meier placed the letter in Strommen’s file.
(Id. at 8.) Sheriff Meier now asserts in his affidavit that he did not connect that the
letter was referring to Strommen at the time Valley County received the letter. (Id.;

Doc. 92-1.)
The anonymous letter carries great probative value to Rodger’s claims against
Valley County. The parties appear to agree that the letter was sent sometime in 2010.
This time period comports with Strommen’s admission to his illegal sexual

relationship with Rodgers between 2009 and 2011. (See Doc. 79 at 5; Doc. 75 at 3;
Doc. 76-1.) The content of the letter, and whether the letter or the envelope contained
any indication as to the author of the letter, would have been important to resolve

Valley County’s alleged negligence. The identities of the victim or suspect may not
have been immediately clear from the anonymous letter. Sheriff Meier’s testimony
indicates, however, that employees of Valley County believed that Strommen was
the sheriff’s deputy identified in the letter.

The anonymous letter clearly holds probative value as to whether Valley
County adequately investigated complaints against its officers, adequately
supervised its employees, and had reason to know of Strommen’s inappropriate

conduct. Valley County argues that it did not learn of the anonymous letter’s
6
existence until Sheriff Meier’s deposition in February of 2022. (Doc. 92 at 6.) Sheriff
Meier testified that he placed the letter into Strommen’s employee file. (Doc. 82 ¶

1.) The letter appears to have been in Valley County’s possession at some point.
(Id.) Valley County employees, like Sheriff Meier, knew of the allegations against a
Valley County employee. Valley County chose not to act in response to the letter.

These facts do not foreclose the possibility that Valley County had acted negligently
in making determinations to discipline or retain employees.
The anonymous letter represented allegations against an employee of Valley
County that foreseeably could have resulted in litigation. The relevance of the

anonymous letter to this litigation proved clear, as it directly relates to the issue of
Valley County’s notice of Strommen’s illegal conduct. Valley County failed to
preserve the letter. Valley County’s failure to preserve the letter has made it more

difficult for Rodgers to prove her claims against Valley County.
The loss of the anonymous letter prejudiced Rodgers. Rodgers no longer has
physical evidence that Valley County knew, or should have known, about the sexual
abuse by one its employees. Rodgers still can present the alleged contents of the

letter at trial. Sheriff Meier disclosed the alleged contents of the letter in his
deposition. Valley County contends it does not dispute the description of the letter’s
contents. (Doc. 92 at 10.) Rodgers still may argue that the undisputed description of

the letter provided to Valley County should have put Valley County on notice of
7
Strommen’s unlawful conduct. Rodgers may address her concerns with the
conflicting testimony of Sherriff Meier between his deposition and affidavit on

cross-examination. The Court declines to prohibit Valley County’s witnesses from
testifying as to the reasonableness of Valley County’s actions in response to the
letter.

Notably, the Court already has considered the spoliation of the same
anonymous letter in Bilbruck v. Valley County, cv-21-40-GF-BMM, 2024 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 134620, at *13-19 (D. Mont. 2024). The Court in Bilbruck did a similar
analysis to the argument and facts in connection with Strommen’s unlawful sexual

abuse of another young girl. Id. The Court found that the lack of evidence showing
“willfulness, fault, or bad faith” of Valley County in the loss of the anonymous letter
did not allow for the harsh sanction of dismissal. Id. at 19 (citing Leon, [464 F.3d at

958](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/795868/mauricio-a-leon-md-v-idx-systems-corporation-a-vermont-corporation/#958)). The Court similarly noted, however, that the anonymous letter carried great
probative value to the plaintiff’s claims against Valley County. Id. at *17-18. The
Court imposed the lesser sanction of an adverse instruction under the circumstances.
Id. at 19. A similar sanction proves warranted. Valley County agrees that “the

spoliation question before the Court remains identical” to Bilbruck. (Doc. 92 at 2.)
Like Bilbruck, dismissal proves too severe of a sanction as there exists
insufficient evidence that Valley County took any affirmative steps to destroy the

anonymous letter or acted in bad faith. The Court declines to impose the harsh and
8
extraordinary sanction of default. Less drastic sanctions remain available. The Court
will grant a sanction in the form of an adverse inference instruction. The Court will
instruct the jury that the jury may draw inferences against Valley County including
but not limited to that the letter had been received during the time period in which
Strommen has admitted that his sexual encounters with Rodgers had occurred and
that the letter contained allegations about a Valley County sheriff's deputy having
sex with an underage high school girl. The Court will solicit proposed adverse
inference instructions from the parties closer to the time of trial.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Rodgers’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc.
80) is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part. The Court grants sanctions for the
destruction or failure to preserve the anonymous letter against Valley County. The
Court finds that an adverse inference instruction represents the appropriate sanction,
rather than the sanction of default against Valley County sought by Rodgers. The
parties shall provide any proposed adverse inference instructions no later than 30
days before the scheduled trial date.
DATED this 26th day of March 2026.

fim Mins Chieti indes =~~
United States District Court