Jones v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DENNIS OWEN JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HIRSCHBACH MOTOR LINES, INC., AN
IOWA CORPORATION; AND CHARLES
RANDALL MULKEY,
Defendant.
1:21-CV-01004-MAM
OPINION AND ORDER AWARDING
SPOLIATION SANCTIONS AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES
In ruling on Plaintiff, Dennis Owen Jones’s (Jones) motion to compel answers to
interrogatories 	and 	document 	requests, 	the 	Court 	ordered 	Jones 	and 	Defendant,
Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc. (Hirschbach), to brief the issues of spoliation and sanctions
involving a specific document request.1 	That request sought all statements taken that
pertained to the disputed vehicle accident no matter what form they were in.2 Hirschbach
deleted certain investigative phone recordings after Jones wrote and asked the company
1 Docket No. 68.
2 Docket No. 55-2.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

2
to preserve accident-related information.3 	Having considered both parties’ briefs and
submissions,4 the Court grants spoliation sanctions.
BACKGROUND
This case revolves around a collision between two sets of vehicles, the afternoon
of March 3, 2020, on a highway in rural Brown County, South Dakota.5 Jones was
operating a tractor and pulling a feed wagon.6 	Defendant, Charles Randall Mulkey
(Mulkey), was driving a Hirschbach semi-truck, with a trailer attached to it, behind Jones
in the same lane of the highway.7 As Jones began to turn right, Mulkey collided with the
rear end of Jones’s wagon.8
After the accident that same day, one of Hirschbach’s managers, Joseph Karberg,
communicated with Mulkey’s wife, Damian Bahr, first responders, and others,9 about the
crash on Hirschbach’s recorded landline office telephone. By its own policy, Hirschbach
3 Docket No. 62-2 at 14-15.
4 Docket Nos. 73-76.
5 Docket No. 21, ¶ 2.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Docket Nos. 43 at 2; 32-1 at 19.
9 Docket No. 75-1 (call log).
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

3
records inbound and outbound calls and then automatically deletes the recordings after
six months.10
On August 25, 2020 – less than six months after the collision – Jones’s counsel sent
his Hirschbach counterpart a letter requesting preservation of, among other things, “all
logs, reports, or records regarding the collision . . . ,” “[s]tatements of any and all
witnesses taken after the collision . . . ,” and all “electronically stored information (‘ESI’)
and other data or information generated by and/or stored on [Hirschbach’s] computers
and storage media . . . .”11 	The letter also directed that Hirschbach (1) “take all steps
necessary to prevent the destruction, loss, . . . or alteration of any . . . ESI”; (2) “initiate a
litigation hold for potentially relevant ESI”; (3) “secure and audit compliance with that []
hold”; and (4) “preserve any means necessary to access . . . and (if necessary) reconstruct
any ESI.”12 	“Adequate preservation of ESI,” the letter said, “requires intervention to
prevent loss due to routine operations” and for Hirschbach to “employ proper techniques
to safeguard all such evidence.”13
10 Docket Nos. 62-2 at 14-15 (affidavit of Austin Curtis, IT director for Hirschbach); 76 at
2 (affidavit of Brian Kohlwes, Hirschbach’s general counsel and chief risk officer).
11 Docket No. 65-4 at 2.
12 Docket No. 65-4 at 2-3.
13 Docket No. 65-4 at 2.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

4
Nine months later, Jones served Hirschbach with discovery which included
Document Request No. 4.14 That Request asked Hirschbach to produce “all statements
taken in connection with the crash, in whatever form [they] exist[ed], i.e. recorded,
written, electronic, etc.”15 	Hirschbach initially objected to the Request on privilege
grounds and said that “no statements have been obtained.”16 When Hirschbach did not
timely respond to inquiries and fully comply with requests for information,17 Jones
moved to compel.18 Hirschbach maintains that its failure to preserve the recordings was
inadvertent, unintentional, and did not prejudice Jones.19 The mistake, Hirschbach says,
occurred because Jones never expressly requested that the recordings be preserved and
was not done to frustrate the discovery process or suppress the truth.20
14 Docket No. 65-5 at 1, 3.
15 Docket No. 55-2 at 3.
16 Id.
17 See Docket Nos. 54 at 3; 55-1 through 55-8.
18 Docket Nos. 53-54.
19 Docket Nos. 75 at 4-5; 76.
20 Docket Nos. 75 at 4-5; 76.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

5
DISCUSSION
A. Spoliation and Sanctions Authority
Spoliation is “[t]he intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment
of evidence, usu. a document.21 A court’s power to impose spoliation sanctions comes
from the rules of civil procedure or, when the rules are not applicable, from the court’s
inherent authority under common law.22 Here, a particular civil rule applies23 and thus
“forecloses reliance on inherent authority.”24
B. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) allows a court, in its discretion, to fashion an
appropriate remedy for the spoliation of ESI.25 Before doing so, the court must find that
(1) the ESI was lost; (2) the ESI “should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct
of litigation”; (3) a party “failed to take reasonable steps to preserve” the ESI; and (4) the
21 Spoliation, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc.,
632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 505 (D.Md. 2009) (“Spoliation is ‘the destruction or material alteration
of evidence or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in a pending
or reasonably foreseeable litigation.’”) (quoting Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban
Dev., 219 F.R.D. 93, 100 (D. Md. 2003)).
22 E*Trade Sec. LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG, 230 F.R.D. 582, 586 (D. Minn. 2005).
23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1), (2) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

6
ESI “cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.”26 If the court finds
that the party “acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in
the litigation,” then the court may impose more severe measures than those when only
prejudice is found.27 “The remedy should fit the wrong,” and such measures should not
be used when the lost information “was relatively unimportant or a lesser measure . . .
would be sufficient to address the loss.”28
C. The ESI is Lost
Both parties acknowledge that the relevant landline recorded phone calls between
Hirschbach 	employees 	and 	witnesses 	to 	the 	accident 	and 	its 	aftermath 	were
automatically deleted.29 The recordings cannot be resurrected and are lost.
D. Hirschbach had a Duty to Preserve the Recordings
A party’s duty to preserve evidence in its possession arises at the first reasonable
sign of litigation.30 Hirschbach’s duty to preserve relevant evidence was triggered when
26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2).
28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
29 Docket Nos. 62-2 at 14-15; 73 at 1; 76 at 2.
30 See Swindle v. Christy, No. 20-06013-CV-SJ-GAF, 2021 WL 5297047, at *9 (W.D. Mo.
Mar. 4, 2021) (“Generally, a defendant's duty to preserve evidence is triggered at the
time the case is filed, unless the defendant before that time becomes aware of facts from
which it should reasonably know that evidence is to be preserved as relevant to future
litigation.” (citation omitted)); Blazer v. Gall, No. 1:16-CV-01046-KES, 2019 WL 3494785,
at *3 (D.S.D. Aug. 1, 2019) (“The obligation to preserve evidence begins when a party
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

7
the crash occurred and most certainly when the company’s counsel received Jones’s
preservation of accident information letter. Although Hirschbach did not have to keep
every type of ESI, the company needed to preserve the ESI of its “key player”
employees.31
Hirschbach’s preservation duty encompassed Karberg’s phone recordings. As a
division manager, Karberg worked with the claims department in the investigation of
accidents involving company vehicles, making him a “key player.”32 	The deleted
recordings from his office contained conversations he had with Mulkey’s wife (who
allegedly was on the phone with Mulkey at the time of the collision), Bahr, officers on the
knows or should have known that the evidence is relevant to future or current
litigation.” (citation omitted)); South Dakota Wheat Growers Ass’n v. Chief Industries, Inc.
337 F. Supp. 3d 891, 914 (D.S.D. 2018) (“[I]f the corporation knew or should have known
that the documents would have been material at some point in the future then such
documents should have been preserved . . . [A] corporation cannot blindly destroy
documents and expect to be shielded by a seemingly innocuous document retention
policy.”).
31 See Swindle, 2021 WL 5297047, at *11 (“Although a corporate defendant is not required
to keep every type of electronic communication, Rule 37(e) extends to ‘key players’ in its
employ likely to have relevant information that could prove useful to an adversary.”
(citation omitted)); Alabama Aircraft Indus. v. Boeing Co., 319 F.R.D. 730, 741 (N.D. Ala.
2017) (“the duty to preserve evidence extends to those employees likely to have relevant
information – the key players in the case, and applies . . . to evidence that might be useful
to the adversary”), aff’d, No. 20-11141, 2022 WL 433457 (11th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022).
32 Docket No. 55-9 at 15-16; 74-1 at 10.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

8
scene, and others.33 	Some or all of these conversations could have generated material
evidence that Jones could use in the litigation, especially given the Court’s previous
determination that the information in them was not privileged and protected from
disclosure.34
E. 	Hirschbach Failed to Take Reasonable Steps to Preserve the Recordings
Rule 37(e) only applies if a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the lost
ESI.35 When gauging the reasonableness of a party’s preservation steps, a court should
consider the party’s sophistication, the staff devoted to and their familiarity with
preservation efforts, and counsel’s awareness of the client’s information systems and
digital data.36
Presumably, 	Hirschbach 	took 	no 	steps 	to 	prevent 	the 	recordings 	from
automatically deleting under its six-month retention policy.37 Hirschbach posits that it
33 See Docket No. 62-2 at 6-9 (showing, in Karberg’s electronic notes, the people he made
landline calls to on March 3-4, 2020); see also Docket No. 73 at 2 (listing who Karberg
called, and talked to, on his landline phone the day of and the day after the accident.).
34 Docket No. 68.
35 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
36 Id.
37 See Docket No. 76 at 2 (“[I]t did not occur to [attorney and chief risk officer Kohlwes]
that 	Hirschbach 	should 	preserve 	any 	tape-recorded 	phone 	conversations 	which
Hirschbach 	employees 	may 	have 	had 	with 	witnesses 	to 	[the] 	accident 	and 	its
aftermath.”).
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

9
did not know it should have preserved the recordings because Jones’s preservation letter
was too vague to alert the company specifically to the phone call recordings.38 	Aside
from the general duty to preserve, which arose well before the recordings automatically
deleted, the preservation letter Hirschbach received prior to the expiration of the six-
month 	retention 	period 	specifically 	referenced 	ESI, 	records, 	and 	statements 	of
witnesses.39 Hirschbach had ample notice of its duty to preserve the recordings and could
have easily sequestered to them.40
What’s more, as a nationwide trucking company with 1,700-1,800 drivers, its own
IT and claims departments, and in-house counsel,41 Hirschbach knew, or should have
known, of the recorded calls and its duty to preserve the recordings but failed to prevent
their destruction.42 The company recorded all landline calls as a normal business practice,
retained the recordings for six months, and had an accident review committee analyze its
38 See id.
39 See Docket No. 65-4.
40 See Blazer, 2019 WL 3494785, at *3 (awarding spoliation sanctions where institutional
defendant did not prevent automatic deletion of relevant audio and video recordings
despite receiving “multiple warnings indicating future litigation” and a deliberate
preservation request from plaintiff before the recordings expired).
41 Docket Nos. 55-9 at 15-17; 74-1 at 10; 76 at 1-2.
42 See Docket Nos. 62-2 at 14-15; 74-1 at 54-55.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

10
drivers’ recorded calls and statements.43 	So on a spectrum of sophistication and
resources, Hirschbach sits on the higher end.
F. 	Restoration Through Further Discovery is Inadequate
A court must next determine whether alternative discovery can satisfactorily
replace the lost ESI.44 	The court may authorize additional discovery under the civil
rules,45 but any efforts at replacement through discovery should be “proportional to the
apparent importance of the lost information to claims or defenses in the litigation.”46
No 	known 	backups 	or 	means 	exist 	to 	replace 	the 	lost 	phone 	recordings.
Hirschbach did, however, produce Karberg’s call log and the brief notes he made in it.47
And Jones deposed the percipient witnesses to the crash.48 But the log, Karberg’s notes,
and the depositions are no substitutes for the phone calls made within a day of the
accident. 	Recollections fade and can change. 	In the final analysis, the evidence
Hirschbach produced and the depositions conducted are not suitable replacements for
43 Docket Nos. 55-9 at 24, 54-55, 62-63; 62-2 at 1-2; 76 at 2.
44 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
45 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 26.
46 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
47 Docket No. 75-1.
48 Docket No. 45.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

11
the recordings Hirschbach erased. The Court therefore finds that spoliation has occurred
and turns to evaluate whether sanctions are appropriate.
G. 	Sanctions
A court has the “discretion to choose the most appropriate sanction under the
circumstances.”49 There are two sanction pathways. One requires a finding of prejudice
to a party from lost information and allows for sanctions “no greater than necessary to
cure the prejudice.”50 The other requires a showing of “intent to deprive [a] party of the
information’s use in the litigation” before dismissing an action or giving an adverse jury
instruction.51
1. 	Prejudice
While the Court has discretion to assess prejudice, an evaluation of the lost
information’s importance in litigation is necessary.52 Karberg’s call log reflects that he
talked to Mulkey’s wife, Bahr, law enforcement, and others on the recorded landline on,
and the days after, the accident.53 A predominate issue in the case is whether Mulkey
was on the phone with his wife and distracted while driving. 	Because the recordings
49 Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 186 F.3d 1016, 1022 (8th Cir. 1999).
50 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1).
51 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2).
52 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
53 Docket No. 62-2 at 6-9.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

12
provide a complete and verbatim account of who said what and were made right after
the crash, they likely have far more relevance and probative value than Karberg’s
subjective log entries. 	The loss of the recordings thus prejudices Jones and warrants
curative sanctions.
2. 	Intent
A court may order more severe sanctions if it finds that one party intentionally
deprived another of ESI’s use in the litigation.54 Since intent is rarely proved by direct
evidence, the court has “substantial leeway” to determine intent through consideration
of circumstantial evidence, witness credibility, motives of witnesses, and other factors.55
Prejudice need not be shown because it is inferred through the court’s finding of intent.56
Sanctions though should not be imposed when lesser measures can redress the lost ESI.57
54 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2).
55 Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Wade, 485 F.3d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Morris v.
Union Pac. R.R., 373 F.3d 896, 902 (8th Cir. 2004)) (evaluating intent for Rule 37
sanctions); see also Auer v. City of Minot, 896 F.3d 854, 858 (8th Cir. 2018) (intent can be
proved indirectly and a party need not find a smoking gun before seeking sanctions).
Alabama Aircraft Indus., 319 F.R.D. at 746 (listing the factors under which a party can be
found to have acted with an intent to deprive under Rule 37(e)(2)).
56 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
57 Id.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

13
Contrary to what Hirschbach claims, Jones’s preservation letter encompassed the
recorded phone conversations Hirschbach deleted.58 The letter explicitly included any
statements, records, data, and ESI relating to the collision.59 Hirschbach’s claim that the
letter was too general and did not put the company on notice to preserve the phone
recordings is unfounded. Neither the discovery rules nor the Court will impose a duty
of clairvoyance on Jones to itemize a preservation request with the specificity that
Hirschbach demands when Hirschbach already had a preexisting – and independent –
obligation to preserve collision-related evidence in its possession. Given (1) its internal
accident investigation policy (using phone recorded statements to evaluate culpability),60
(2) its manual call log and note-taking system (distinguishing calls made on the recorded
landline 	versus 	a 	cell 	phone),61 and 	(3) 	the 	expertise 	of 	in-house 	IT 	and 	legal
departments62 (to provide assistance and advice), Hirschbach knew, or at least should
have known, of the records’ existence, their relevance to likely litigation, and the need –
indeed the duty – to preserve them. 	Hirschbach does not say if anyone reviewed the
recordings before they were deleted or if it took any steps at all to preserve them. At any
58 Docket No. 65-4.
59 Id.
60 Docket No. 74-1 at 54-55.
61 Docket No. 75-1.
62 Docket Nos. 62-2 at 14-15; 76.
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

14
rate, a strong motivation to shift blame and deter liability arose when Hirschbach found
out its driver, Mulkey, may have been on the phone with his wife when the accident took
place. Mulkey has disputed63 being on the phone at the time of the crash which makes
Karberg’s recorded conversation with Mulkey’s wife – and her statements about phone
calls with Mulkey – all the more meaningful. Based on the totality of the circumstances,
and inferences reasonably drawn from them, the Court finds that Hirschbach’s lack of
action (to preserve recordings it had a duty to maintain) was intentional and deprived
Jones of evidence for use in litigation.64
63 See Docket Nos. 73 at 4 (alerting the Court to this dispute); 74-2 (Mulkey’s testimony
that he had not been talking on the cell phone just shortly before the crash); but see Docket
No. 75 at 4-5 (stating that this fact is not in dispute because Mulkey admitted he was on
the phone to witness Bahr).
64 See Swindle, 2021 WL 5297047, at *6 (finding intentional spoliation of ESI when the court
hypothesized 	that, 	among 	other 	possibilities, 	defendants inspected 	their 	ESI 	and
intentionally disposed of information unfavorable to them); Blazer, 2019 WL 3494785, at
*5 (finding intent for Rule 37(e) purposes when circumstances showed a “clear lack of
action 	taken 	by 	[defendants] 	following 	well-defined 	requests 	by 	an 	attorney 	for
preservation of recordings and documents relevant to likely litigation”); South Dakota
Wheat Growers, 337 F. Supp. 3d at 914-15 (upon receipt of preservation letter, defendant
should have sequestered the relevant documents so that “inadvertent elimination” and
prejudice to plaintiff would not occur; as a sanction for the spoliation, adverse inference
instruction should be given “allowing the jury to draw an inference that the evidence
destroyed would not support [defendant’s] claim”).
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

15
3. 	Adverse Instruction and Reasonable Arguments
Any sanction a court imposes must be proportionate to the wrong committed.65
Jones’s request for a default judgment on the issue of liability66 goes too far. Instead, the
Court 	finds that 	a 	permissive 	adverse 	inference 	instruction 	is 	a 	remedy 	that 	is
commensurate with the loss of the ESI.67 	The Court will instruct the jury that it may
presume the content of the deleted recordings was adverse to Hirschbach, but will allow
Hirschbach to deter the effect of such an instruction with reasonable rebuttal.68 And both
parties will be permitted to make reasonable arguments at trial about the destroyed
recordings.69
65 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
66 Docket No. 73 at 11.
67 See Blazer, 2019 WL 3494785, at *5; South Dakota Wheat Growers, 337 F. Supp. 3d at 913-
15; see also GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., 930 F.3d 76, 83-85 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming
district court’s refusal to grant a default judgment and decision to impose lesser sanction
of permissive adverse inference instruction); Moody v. CSX Transp., Inc., 271 F. Supp. 3d
410, 431-32 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (adverse inference instruction justified to appropriately
address evidentiary gap caused by loss of material evidence).
68 See Stevenson v. Union Pac. R. R. Co. 354 F.3d 739, 750 (8th Cir. 2004) (“A permissive
inference is subject to reasonable rebuttal.” (citation omitted)).
69 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note to the 2015 amendment (allowing
parties to make arguments about the lost information as a remedy to cure prejudicial ESI
spoliation).
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

16
4. 	Attorney’s Fees
Among the available sanctions for ESI spoliation, a court may order the spoliating
party to pay the aggrieved party’s attorney’s fees and expenses relating to the ESI loss.70
The Court finds it appropriate to award reasonable attorney’s fees to Jones for the
spoliation portion (and only that portion) of his motion to compel.
CONCLUSION
Hirschbach spoliated evidence – ESI consisting of landline phone recordings –
with the intent to deprive Jones of the ESI’s use in litigation and the loss of that evidence
was prejudicial. Jones is entitled to sanctions in the form of an adverse jury instruction,
attorney’s fees, and costs.
ORDER
It is accordingly,
ORDERED that Jones’s request for spoliation sanctions is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
70 Blazer, 2019 WL 3494785, at *5 (awarding attorney’s fees for lost recordings); Browder v.
City of Albuquerque, 209 F. Supp. 3d 1236, 1244, 1247 (D.N.M. 2016) (observing that court-
fashioned spoliation sanctions include attorney’s fees and awarding reasonable expenses
and fees incurred in bringing spoliation motion); see also Bistrian v. Levi, 448 F. Supp. 3d
454, 478 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (citing Ericksen v. Kaplan Higher Educ., LLC, No. 14-3106, 2016 WL
695789, at **1-2 (D. Md. Feb. 22, 2016) (“the ‘range’ of measures a court is authorized to
impose under Rule 37(e)(1) is ‘quite broad’” and “includes requiring the spoliating party
to pay reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the other side in litigating the loss of the
ESI”).
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

17
1. 	An adverse inference instruction will be given permitting, but not requiring, the
jury to presume the content of the deleted recordings was adverse to Hirschbach.
Reasonable rebuttal of the presumption, however, will be permitted.
2. 	Both parties may make reasonable arguments at trial about the erased recordings.
3. 	Reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses, associated with the spoliation issue, are
to be paid to Jones. Jones should provide his fee and expense request, along with
a detailed accounting, by October 11, 2022.
DATED this 20th day of September, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
MARK A. MORENO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:21-cv-01004-MAM Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>