DECISION AND ORDERBACKGROUND On October 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking an adverse inference instruction. (Dkt. 113). Plaintiff contends that Defendants destroyed statistical evidence relevant to his claim that he was denied equal protection of the laws.Specifically, in May 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel requested the following documents from Defendants’ counsel: (1) “[a]ll Orders that inmates be placed behind a ‘plexiglass shield,’ in temporary solitary confinement, or be placed on a restricted diet issued for White/Caucasian inmates residing in the Southport Facility’s ‘A-Block’ from January 1, 2010-December 31, 2010;” and (2) “[a]ll ‘mail watch’ orders issued for White/Caucasian inmates residing in the Southport Facility’s ‘A-Block’ from January 1, 2010-December 31, 2011.” (Dkt. 113 at 3-4). By letter dated June 23, 2017, Defendants’ counsel stated that any such documents had been destroyed pursuant to the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (“DOCCS”) policy of destroying documents five years after their creation. (Id. at 4).At the Court’s request, Defendants’ counsel filed an affidavit on October 11, 2018 (Dkt. 117), further elaborating on DOCCS’ document retention practices. Counsel explained that plexiglass shield and restricted diet orders would have been retained in the Deputy Superintendent of Security’s office facility file and that mail watch orders would have been retained in the Superintendent’s office facility file. (Id. at
4-5). Counsel further confirmed that these records, which are retained in the form of paper documents only, would have been maintained for a period of five years and then destroyed. (Id. at 3).DISCUSSIONI. Legal Standard“[A] party seeking an adverse inference instruction based on the destruction of evidence must establish (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind; and (3) that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.” Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2002). “In general, the adverse inference instruction is an extreme sanction and should not be imposed lightly.” Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 249 F.R.D. 111, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).II. Duty to PreserveHere, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established his entitlement to an adverse inference instruction. As an initial matter, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants had a duty to preserve the documents he ultimately sought in May 2017. “[T]he obligation to preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Express Corp., 247 F.3d 423, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). “[A] litigant is under no duty to keep or retain every document in its possession…[but] is under a duty to preserve what it knows, or reasonably should know, is relevant in the action, is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to be requested during discovery and/or is the subject of a pending discovery request.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).In order to assess Defendants’ preservation obligation in this case, it is necessary to briefly summarize the procedural history. This matter is a consolidation of two matters filed by Plaintiff in 2010 and 2011: Civil Case No. 10-cv-6419 (the “2010 Case”) and Civil Case No. 11-cv-6101 (the “2011 Case”). Plaintiff’s equal protection claim is set forth in the Amended Complaint in the 2011 Case (the “Amended Complaint”) (Dkt. 19 in Civil Matter No. 11-cv-6101), which was consolidated into the instant matter (the 2010 Case) on November 13, 2015. (See Dkt. 52).In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges in connection with his equal protection claim that then-defendant Belena Krusen (against whom Plaintiff has dismissed his claims (see Dkt. 116)) charged him “an inflated price for postage,” Defendant Angela Bartlett required him to turn over a religious legal study guide, and various Defendants allegedly misdirected and tampered with his mail. (Dkt. 19 in Civil Matter No. 11-cv-6101 at
