Lewis v. RGR Transport Texas, LLC et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT W. LEWIS, SR. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 4:25 CV 214 JMB
)
OFI’S TRUCKING, LLC and ADOLFO )
HUERTA, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 47) and
Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 54). For the reasons set forth below and at the hearing
held on June 9, 2026 (Doc. 59), Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED without
prejudice in part and Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
Background
The following is undisputed. Within one month of the car accident that forms the basis of
this suit, Plaintiff mailed letters to RGR Transport (a former Defendant who Plaintiff believed was
the employer), Adolfo Huerta (Defendant driver), DB Insurance (insurer to Defendant OFI’s and
its owner, Raul Estrada, who also owns RGR), and ESIS Proclaim (which handles DB’s claims)
indicating an intent to file suit and directing them to place a litigation hold on the telematics data,
driver logs, camera footage, and other electronic data they may possess. ESIS acknowledged
receipt of the letters by Huerta, Estrada, and OFI’s. Defendants do not dispute that they failed to
take affirmative steps to preserve the electronic data. Instead, Estrada merely assumed that the
company that OFI’s hired to collect and retain data, Monarch Tracking, LLC, would retain the data
Case: 4:25-cv-00214-JMB Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/22/26 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
forever. Unfortunately, Monarch was not contacted to retain the data and wiped the data 6 months
after the accident in accordance with its standard retention policy.1
In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff received additional information regarding Defendant
OFI’s conduct as a business.2 This evidence includes a Notice of Claims and Onsite Investigation
Report issued by the Department of Transportation for the time period June to December 2023.
The Notice and Report outline a variety of violations ranging from allowing unlicensed CDL
drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles to violating limitations of drive time to maintaining
false records. Plaintiff also has received bills of lading, settlement sheets (i.e. payroll sheets), and
GPS data from two trucks, ## 7 and 9, from June 2023 (the month of the accident). None of the
information provided would show Huerta’s true “on-duty time” which is relevant to Plaintiff’s
claims against OFI’s and which would have been shown in the lost telematics data.
It is undisputed that the telematics data is unrecoverable.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) provides:
Failure to Preserve Electronically Stored Information. If electronically stored
information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of
litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it
cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:
(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information,
may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or
(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another
party of the information’s use in the litigation may:
1 It appears that Defendant Huerta appropriately forwarded the litigation hold letter to his employer or its insurer.
2 To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to timely comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure as to
the production of documents or the designation of a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, such matters are not properly before the
Court. As noted at the hearing, Plaintiffs did not go through the steps to present these issues to the Court in accordance
with the Court’s procedures. Most notably, Plaintiffs did not bring these issues to the Court’s attention through the
informal discovery dispute procedures adopted by this Court. While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff believes
that such informal procedures would have been fruitless, such matters should not be raised for the first time in a motion
for sanctions.
Case: 4:25-cv-00214-JMB Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/22/26 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was
unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.
There is a common law duty to preserve evidence. Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified
Realty Corp., 247 F.R.D. 567, 570 (8th Cir. 2007) (“The obligation to preserve evidence arises
when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a party should have
known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.” (quotation marks and citations
omitted)). The Court has wide direction in fashioning a remedy for discovery violations. See
Vallejo v. Amgen Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (district court’s discovery rulings are
reviewed for abuse of discretion). Allowable sanctions for a Rule 37(e)(1) violation are “quite
broad” and “entrusted to the court’s discretion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note to
2015 amendment. Rule 37(e)(2) essentially codifies spoliation of electronic evidence. Sanctions
for spoliation “require a finding of intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth.”
Mehner v. Furniture design Studios, Inc., 143 F.4th 941, 954-955 (8th Cir. 2025). Importantly, a
determination of spoliation is through an evidentiary hearing where Plaintiff must demonstrate
through witness testimony and otherwise the intent of Defendant to deprive him of evidence. Id.
Negligence is insufficient; however, intent may be demonstrated by circumstantial evidence. Auer
v. City of Minot, 896 F.3d 854, 858 (8th Cir. 2018) (“To be sure, intent can be proved indirectly
and Auer did not need to find a smoking gun before she could seek sanctions against the city.”).
There is no question that electronic data that should have been preserved has been lost
because OFI’s failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the data and that the data cannot be
restored or replaced through additional discovery. While OFI’s did take a minimal step in hiring
Case: 4:25-cv-00214-JMB Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/22/26 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
Monarch to manage its data, it wholly failed to ensure that the data was preserved in anticipation
of litigation. Instead, OFI’s chose to rely on ill-advised assumptions and complete inaction in the
face of litigation hold letters. As set forth at the hearing, the only issue to be determined is whether
Plaintiff is prejudiced by the loss of data and whether Defendants acted with the intent to deprive
him of the evidence. Certainly, Plaintiff is prejudiced by the loss of data. As set forth in the
hearing, the additional information that Plaintiff acquired, including the GPS data, does not present
a full picture of the “duty time” issue that is at the heart of Plaintiff’s claims against OFI’s in
Counts III-VII. As such, Plaintiff has been prejudiced by the deprivation of the best evidence that
would support his claims.
Whether or not OFI’s acted with an intent to deprive is a question that will be reserved
(along with any potential sanctions) for trial.
As set forth at the hearing, to cure the prejudice, the Court will permit Plaintiff to conduct
expert discovery. Plaintiff shall have 45 days to produce a report and Defendnats shall have 45
days thereafter to depose Plaintiff’s expert. Additional deadlines, including the trial date will be
continued.
As to Defendants’ motions for sanctions, they argue that Plaintiff also should have
preserved data that his vehicle recorded prior to the accident. Defendants argue that Plaintiff
should be held to the same standard as Defendants as to the retention of electronic data. However,
Plaintiff is a layperson and not a business entity in a heavily regulated industry – it is unclear
whether Plaintiff was even aware that his vehicle recorded electronic data. There also does not
appear to be any serious dispute as to liability such that Plaintiff’s vehicle’s data would be integral
to any defense. For these reasons and those set forth at the hearing, Defendants’ motion must be
denied.
Case: 4:25-cv-00214-JMB Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/22/26 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 5 of 5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 47) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part and Defendants’ Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 54) is DENIED.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall have 45 days from the date of the hearing (June 9, 2026) to disclose his expert
and produce an expert report.
2. Defendants shall have 45 days thereafter to depose Plaintiff’s expert. If Defendants also seek
to disclose an expert out-of-time, they may file a motion.
3. The Discovery deadline is extended to September 7, 2026. Dispositive motions (for summary
judgment and/or to exclude expert) shall be filed by September 21, 2026. Response shall be due
by October 19, 2026 and replies are due by November 2, 2026.
4. The September 29, 2026 final pretrial conference and October 5, 2026 jury trial dates are
VACATED. The Final Pretrial Conference is RESET to June 1, 2027 at 9:30 a.m. and the Jury
Trial is RESET to June 7, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. and will be scheduled for 4 days.
/s/ John M. Bodenhausen
JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2026
Case: 4:25-cv-00214-JMB Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/22/26 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>