A Delaware court has denied a request from US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC and others for pretrial sanctions against JDB Capital Partners, LLC due to alleged spoliation of evidence. The court's decision means that the issue will be resolved after the trial, which is set to begin in six weeks. This ruling affects the ongoing litigation between these parties, as it delays any potential consequences for the alleged destruction of evidence.

The court's opinion was issued on November 2, 2026, and it comes as a response to a motion filed by the plaintiffs on October 16, 2026. The plaintiffs sought to impose adverse inferences against the defendants, claiming that a trustee for JDB Capital failed to preserve crucial evidence, including text messages, by not disabling auto-delete settings on cell phones and deleting messages during phone upgrades. The court ruled that it could not determine the intent or recklessness of the alleged spoliation without hearing the evidence during the trial.

Background

The case, US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC, et al. v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC, is currently before the Court of Chancery of Delaware under docket number 2024-0097-LWW. The plaintiffs, US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC and associated parties, are engaged in a legal dispute with JDB Capital Partners, LLC and its trustee. The nature of the dispute involves allegations regarding the mishandling and destruction of evidence that could be critical to the plaintiffs' case.

This case has emerged from a broader context of increasing motions related to spoliation of evidence in Delaware courts. Spoliation refers to the destruction or alteration of evidence that can affect the outcome of a legal proceeding. In this instance, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants' actions in deleting text messages and failing to preserve evidence should result in sanctions that would disadvantage the defendants in the trial.

The Ruling

In her ruling, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will stated that the plaintiffs' request for a pretrial hearing to impose sanctions was denied. The court emphasized that addressing such motions before the trial could disrupt the adjudication of the merits of the case. The court noted, "Resolving such requests in advance of trial risks allowing a dispute over lost evidence to displace adjudication of the merits on the available record."

The court highlighted the importance of evaluating the intent behind the alleged spoliation, stating that under Delaware's Court of Chancery Rule 37(e)(2), an adverse inference requires a finding of recklessness or intent to deprive another party of information. The court concluded that it could not make this assessment based on the existing paper record and would prefer to hear evidence during the trial. The court indicated that it would consider the motion for sanctions after the trial, allowing for a complete record to evaluate any potential prejudice and tailor an appropriate remedy.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved in the case. By deferring the decision on spoliation sanctions until after the trial, the court allows the trial to proceed without the distraction of pretrial motions that could complicate the process. This approach ensures that the court can make informed decisions based on live testimony and evidence presented during the trial.

The decision also reflects a broader trend in Delaware courts to handle spoliation issues in a way that prioritizes the merits of the case. The court's ruling suggests that it is more effective to address evidentiary issues after assessing witness credibility and the context of the evidence presented at trial. This may set a precedent for future cases involving spoliation claims, emphasizing the importance of resolving such disputes based on a complete trial record.

What's Next

The trial is set to begin in six weeks, and both parties will continue to prepare their cases. The plaintiffs and defendants will present evidence regarding the alleged spoliation during the trial, and the court will consider the motion for sanctions in its post-trial decision. There is no indication in the court filing that the ruling can be appealed at this stage, as it is a procedural decision made prior to the trial.