AGDAL v. DANIS, 2:23-cv-16873

Plaintiff Nina Agdal alleges that Defendant Dillon Danis failed to comply with discovery obligations, particularly regarding a cellphone potentially containing relevant evidence.
The court previously ordered Danis to search for and produce all responsive materials, including cellphone data, and to describe search efforts in detail.
Danis reported his cellphone was missing and later stated it was broken; after court intervention, the phone was eventually turned over for forensic examination.
Agdal’s forensic examiner found the damage to the phone inconsistent with Danis’s testimony and suggested potential intentional destruction.
Agdal requested that Danis pay for additional forensic examination costs, which could be a precursor to seeking sanctions for spoliation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
The court addressed whether it was appropriate to shift the costs of additional forensic analysis to Danis before finding sufficient evidence of spoliation or Rule 37(e) violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant should pay for further forensic exam	Danis’s obstructive conduct and implausible explanation justify requiring him to bear exam costs	No evidence unrecoverable, unique, or withheld info; cost-shifting is premature	Request DENIED without prejudice; insufficient evidence to require defendant to pay exam costs
Sufficiency of evidence of spoliation/Rule 37(e) violation	Evidence, incl. expert opinion, suggests probable intentional destruction and unrecovered relevant data	No unique, discoverable info lost or withheld; all relevant messages/accounts already produced	Insufficient evidence of actual spoliation, suppression, or withholding of discoverable material
Appropriateness/timing of sanctions	Deliberate discovery misconduct and phone incapacitation merit cost-shifting and potential sanctions	Plaintiff has not established intent, uniqueness, or irreplaceability of data	Sanctions or cost-shifting not warranted at this stage; further evidence required
Whether precedent supports immediate cost-shifting	Comparator cases involved clear, intentional destruction and support her position	Cases are distinguishable; those involved direct evidence of intentional destruction	Plaintiff’s cited cases are distinguishable; direct evidence of intent not established here

Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 68 (3d Cir. 2012) (spoliation requires intent beyond mere negligence; outlined four factors for spoliation)