Oliver v. Meow Wolf, Inc, 1:20-cv-00237

Background

Plaintiff Lauren Oliver controlled the account lauren.oliver@gmail.com but stopped using it in spring 2015 after the Anthem data breach and set an auto-reply directing contacts to her other addresses (quellette@gmail.com / quellettestudio@gmail.com).
From 2015–2018 most communications between Oliver and Meow Wolf occurred via her other Gmail accounts and Slack; Meow Wolf sent at least eight messages to the old account and received auto-replies.
In May–June 2018 relations soured over use/licensing of Oliver’s Space Owl/ISQ; Oliver sought legal contact, questioned past uses, filed a copyright application on June 24, 2018, and around June 27, 2018 deleted five years of emails from lauren.oliver@gmail.com.
Defendants moved for spoliation sanctions, alleging deletion was in bad faith and destroyed a key March 17, 2017 email/contract; requested adverse inferences, evidentiary preclusion, and a court-appointed forensic expert at Plaintiffs’ expense (Doc. 132).
The magistrate judge found the timing of the deletions suspicious but insufficient to show intent to deprive under Rule 37(e); denied sanctions and adverse-inference remedies, but authorized a forensic inspection if Defendants pay the expert fees and Plaintiff cooperates (preserve devices, sign Google release, 45-day recovery period, limited 4-hour reopening of deposition).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mass deletion constituted intentional spoliation warranting Rule 37(e) sanctions	Oliver deleted old account believing it was hacked and full of spam/phishing; she mainly used other accounts	Deletions occurred amid licensing dispute and copyright filing; deleted emails likely contained key communications (e.g., 3/17/2017 email)	Timing suspicious but circumstantial evidence insufficient to find intent to deprive; Rule 37(e) sanctions denied
Whether adverse inference or preclusion may be imposed absent bad faith	Bad faith not present; no intent to deprive	Adverse remedies appropriate to remedy prejudice even if not intentional	Tenth Circuit precedent requires bad faith for an adverse-inference instruction; court denies adverse inferences and preclusion
Whether Defendants were prejudiced and whether deleted account likely contained a "trove" of relevant emails	Most relevant communications were on other accounts; Defendants should have copies of emails they sent; old account long out of use after 2015	Some Meow Wolf personnel used personal accounts; deleted emails could be uniquely probative and not held by Defendants	Court finds account unlikely to have the trove Defendants claim and Defendants failed to show prejudice from deletion
Whether forensic recovery is permissible and who bears cost	Opposes cost-shifting to Plaintiff; cooperates if process is reasonable	Requests court-appointed forensic expert and broad sanctions if emails unrecoverable	Court allows forensic inspection but conditions it on Defendants bearing expert costs; Plaintiff must preserve devices, sign Google release; limited deposition reopen if recovery occurs

Key Cases Cited

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2007) (spoliation sanction proper when party knew or should have known litigation was imminent and opposing party was prejudiced)
103 Investors I, L.P. v. Square D Co., 470 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court may exclude testimony or enter directed verdict where destroyed evidence prejudices opposing party)
Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2009) (bad faith required to justify an adverse inference instruction)
Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (imminence is sufficient but not necessary to trigger preservation duty; ‘reasonably foreseeable’ standard discussed)
Gutierrez v. Cobos, 841 F.3d 895 (10th Cir. 2016) (issues or requests raised first in a reply brief may be waived)