Wisconsin judge rejects video hash challenge and spoliation request on jail-record evidence

A federal judge in Wisconsin rejected challenges to the authenticity and preservation of jail videos in Grant v. Krolikowski on October 22. District Judge James D. Peterson considered the produced footage at summary judgment and denied Caleb Grant’s request for spoliation sanctions. In the same order, the court granted defendants summary judgment on the remaining constitutional claims arising from Grant’s roughly 32-hour detention and directed entry of judgment closing the case. Grant v. Krolikowski

Grant argued that time jumps, absent audio, watermarks and SHA-256 values that differed from the defendants’ production documentation showed the videos were not authentic. The defendants said their recordings had no audio, that their only modification was adding watermarks, and that they had offered to show him the original, unwatermarked versions. The opinion recounts those competing positions; this article does not independently determine what happened to the video files. Grant v. Krolikowski

The judge found the defendants had provided plausible explanations for the videos’ appearance and possible differences from the original files’ hashes, while Grant offered speculation rather than contrary evidence. On that record, the court found no reason to doubt authenticity. The ruling does not establish that every hash difference is harmless or that adding a watermark automatically resolves an authenticity objection. Grant v. Krolikowski

Some footage had been overwritten. Jail officials said they saved what remained after learning of Grant’s lawsuit. Applying the standard described in its opinion, the court found that Grant had not shown the requisite anticipation of litigation and bad-faith destruction, and it separately found no prejudice. The judge emphasized that the facts were largely undisputed and that Grant had not persuasively explained how additional footage would help his case. Grant v. Krolikowski

The opinion does not expressly analyze Rule 37(e). Its resolution of this sanctions request should therefore remain tied to the standard it actually applied and this record, rather than be presented as a rule that routine overwriting always excuses evidence loss. CourtListener marks the opinion’s publication status as unknown; it is a ruling by a federal district judge. Grant v. Krolikowski

The October 23 history check found the October 22 order and a separate judgment entry in CourtListener’s public docket records, with no later entry in the scoped response. The judgment document was unavailable there. No paid docket search was made, so this report does not establish the absence of an appeal or subsequent proceedings. Grant v. Krolikowski

Analysis. The useful distinction is between identifying a file difference and explaining its significance. A defensible production record should make it possible to trace an original to a produced copy, identify any disclosed transformation, and address the reason missing material matters to the dispute. That is an editorial workflow recommendation drawn from the court’s focus on explanations, contrary evidence and prejudice—not a finding that these particular videos were independently authenticated by this publication. Grant v. Krolikowski

Grant v. Krolikowski. United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. 3:23-cv-00551-jdp. Filed 2026-10-22. Unknown (CourtListener metadata; district-court order).

AI-assisted reporting based on court records retrieved through CourtListener. This analysis is produced by eDiscovery Decoder; it is not reviewed or endorsed by Free Law Project.