compare Photographs, ECF No. 68-13 at 11-14, with Photograph, ECF No. 91-1 at 3, there is no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing to “verify” the “identity” of the recently recovered action figure. See PL’s Objs., ECF No. 99 at 41. Second, it is undisputed that photographic evidence in the record shows how the action figure was displayed to Ms. Toomer between June 8 and June 23, 2010. Def.’s SMF, ECF No. 68 ¶ 29; PL’s Resp. SMF, ECF No. 73 at page 30. As explained above, see supra Part III.A, it is that undisputed photographic evidence that entitles defendant to summary judgment as to Ms. Toomer’s racially hostile work environment claim and, accordingly, spoliation sanctions are unwarranted. See Grosdidier v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, Chairman, 709 F.3d 19, 28-29 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Ms. Toomer’s motion for
recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff holding that even if the plaintiff were given a favorable inference because of spoliation other evidence in the record prevented the plaintiff from surmounting summary judgment holding that in a failuretotransfer case if after a full opportunity for discovery the summary judgment record is insufficient to establish the existence of an appropriate position into which the plaintiff could have been transferred summary judgment must be granted in favor of the defendant  even if it also appears that the defendant failed to engage in good faith in the interactive process holding that an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence requires proof that evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind and that it was relevant to the partys claim or defense