Washington appeals court upholds denial of spoliation relief over deleted clinical-note copy

A Washington appeals court upheld the denial of a spoliation instruction and discovery sanctions in a dispute over the creation date of clinical notes. The October 26 unpublished opinion in Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel emphasized the evidence available to the jury, surviving copies of the notes, and the absence of evidence supporting bad faith or prejudice. It does not create a general permission to delete sensitive files during litigation. Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel

Sall, whom the opinion calls Keats, alleged that his former therapists created clinical notes in 2022 after he requested his records, rather than during the earlier treatment period. Discovery initially produced PDF records. The parties later investigated Word files on two laptops and an external storage device. Experts identified matching file dates, but disagreed about what the metadata could reliably establish, including the effect of timestamp irregularities on one laptop. The jury ultimately found that Keats had not proved creation in 2022 or later by a preponderance of the evidence. Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel

Keats sought a spoliation instruction after Ringel deleted files, including a copy of the notes, during litigation. Ringel testified that he was trying to protect other patients’ information and personal material before forensic examination. The appeals court concluded that his testimony did not support bad faith or conscious disregard for the evidence’s importance. That was an assessment of the evidence in this case, not a categorical exemption from preservation duties for files containing private information. Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel

The deleted copy was not the only version available. The opinion says ArcherHall identified 13 instances of the notes across the two laptops and the external device, and that all three expert reports identified the same creation, modification and access dates. The experts disputed the reliability and significance of those timestamps. The court reasoned that the jury could still assess when the file was created, so losing one copy had not prevented that inquiry. It also upheld the denial of discovery sanctions, noting the trial court’s findings that the deletion was inadvertent, was not in bad faith and had not been shown to cause prejudice. Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel

The court separately rejected a challenge to the special verdict question. Although creation in 2022 was not itself an element of the asserted tort, it was an essential fact of the theory Keats had presented. The jury’s failure to find that fact supported dismissal. That outcome is narrower than a finding that all metadata was reliable or that the notes’ authenticity had been conclusively established. Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel

Analysis. For discovery teams, the useful distinction is between losing a file and proving that the loss impaired a disputed issue. Here, the court connected the requested relief to surviving versions, competing forensic evidence and the jury’s remaining ability to evaluate the date question. A count of surviving copies does not by itself prove that a deleted version lacked unique information; the opinion’s reasoning depended on the record presented. Nor should its acceptance of Ringel’s explanation be treated as permission to remove files unilaterally from a device subject to preservation. Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel

This is an unpublished Washington state decision, not a federal Rule 37(e) holding. The reporting relies on the complete opinion rather than direct inspection of clinical records, devices or forensic images. An evening October 27 CourtListener metadata and docket-number opinion search returned this decision only. That limited index check does not establish the absence of later proceedings, a publication-status change or a rehearing request. The court affirmed the judgment; appellate finality has not been independently established here. Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel

Noah Keats Sall v. Jack M. Ringel. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. 88709-2-I. Filed 2026-10-26. Unpublished.

AI-assisted reporting based on court records retrieved through CourtListener. This analysis is produced by eDiscovery Decoder; it is not reviewed or endorsed by Free Law Project.