In Phillips v. Potter, 2009 WL 1362049 (W.D. Penn. May 14, 2009), U.S. District Court Chief Judge Donetta W. Ambrose denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and further denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions related to the defendant's shredding of documents and failure to halt the auto-delete features of its electronic information systems.

Plaintiff, a postal worker, sued the United States Postal Service (John Potter is Postmaster General) for alleged retaliation and violation of  a settlement agreement related to her prior lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation based on the actions of her former supervisor.  Plaintiff moved for sanctions based on defendant's admission that it failed to preserve electronically stored information and shredded certain documents.  Plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC against the defendant in August 2006.

A formal complaint was sent to the defendant in September 2006, receipt of which was acknowledged in November 2006.  However, prior to May 2007, all of defendant's emails were destroyed at the main server level every thirty days.  After May 2007, emails on the server were stored for 18 months and then destroyed unless requested to be retained.  The defendant initiated a litigation hold in this case in late February 2008.

In spite of its failure to preserve emails and admitted shredding of documents, the defendant argued that there was no evidence that relevant documents were destroyed.  The court found that based on the evidence, it was essentially being asked to speculate whether or not relevant emails were ever sent or deleted by the automatic deletion system. The court declined, ruling that sanctions must be based on more than mere speculation.  The court further held there was no indication that the shredded documents were relevant and declined, in the absence of such evidence, to speculate whether the defendant intentionally spoliated relevant evidence.