Sanctions for the Deletion of Text Messages in Armstrong v. Holmes Case

Sanctions for the Deletion of Text Messages in Armstrong v. Holmes Case

According to Doug Austin’s case law summary of Armstrong v. Holmes in eDiscovery Today, Nevada Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney sanctioned defendant Susan Holmes for intentionally deleting text messages, opting for an adverse inference instruction sanction instead of the default judgment sought by the plaintiff.

The court had previously ordered Holmes to produce text messages and emails with her son, William Holmes, regarding the case. It found her duty to preserve evidence arose when she entered into a settlement agreement in May 2022, containing provisions about payments and non-disparagement.

While the court deferred ruling on spoliation motions related to messages with Holmes’ daughter and niece, it denied sanctions against William Holmes and Kerry Armstrong. However, it found Susan Holmes’ deletion of messages troubling, especially those with her daughter, suggesting intentional spoliation.

The article goes on to highlight Judge Denney’s conclusion that Holmes deleted messages after being served with a preservation letter, failing to preserve relevant evidence. Despite this, he did not grant the plaintiff’s request for default judgment, stating it hadn’t harmed Armstrong’s case irreparably.

Instead, he imposed an adverse inference instruction sanction against Holmes for her intentional deletion of messages. This ruling holds Holmes responsible for the missing evidence and allows the jury to infer that the deleted messages would have been unfavorable to her case.

In summary, the court gave Susan Holmes sanctions for the deletion of text messages but opted for an adverse inference instruction rather than default judgment, acknowledging the severity of her actions but preserving Armstrong’s ability to present his case.