The Delaware Court of Chancery will decide a request for spoliation sanctions after trial rather than hold the requested pretrial hearing. In a November 2 letter ruling in US INFRA SVCS Buyer v. JDB Capital Partners, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will denied the request for an advance hearing on adverse inferences. She did not decide whether spoliation occurred or whether sanctions should ultimately be imposed. US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC
Phone-data allegations remain unresolved
The plaintiffs filed their sanctions motion on October 16. According to the ruling, they alleged that a defendant’s trustee failed to disable cell phone auto-delete settings, failed to preserve data during phone upgrades and deleted text messages. Those are the plaintiffs’ allegations, not findings that the trustee destroyed evidence with a particular state of mind. US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC; US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC
Will wrote that she could not determine from the existing paper record whether the alleged conduct reflected negligence, recklessness or intentional spoliation. She described the Court of Chancery’s Rule 37(e)(2) as requiring recklessness or intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation for an adverse inference. The ruling addresses that Delaware court’s rule and this case’s record; it does not announce a nationwide sanctions standard. US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC; US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC
Why the court will wait
With trial six weeks away when she issued the letter, Will warned that deciding merits-based spoliation motions in advance could let the dispute over missing evidence displace adjudication on the available record. She said the complete trial record would also permit an assessment of prejudice and, if warranted, a proportionate remedy. Because the matter will be tried to the court, she explained, the judge need not give herself preliminary evidentiary instructions. US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC; US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC; US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC; US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC
The parties may finish their stipulated pretrial briefing, but the court directed them to present evidence about the alleged spoliation at trial and address the requested relief in post-trial briefs. The sanctions motion remains unresolved; the letter postpones the decision rather than rejecting the requested sanctions on their merits. US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC
What discovery teams can take from the ruling
Analysis. The practical distinction is between preserving the facts about lost data and deciding what those facts justify. A postponed sanctions decision still leaves the parties needing evidence about what happened, the responsible person’s state of mind and the resulting prejudice. The letter’s direction to develop that record at trial should not be read as permission to postpone preservation or as a conclusion that phone auto-delete settings are harmless. US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC; US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC; US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC
Status and source limits
This report concerns the November 2 letter, not a final sanctions decision. A November 3 search of CourtListener’s opinions found no later opinion in the case. The public index does not supply a complete official case docket, so later filings, corrections and proceedings remain unconfirmed. US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC
Sources
US INFRA SVCS Buyer, LLC v. JDB Capital Partners, LLC. Court of Chancery of Delaware. 2024-0097-LWW. Filed 2026-11-02. Published.
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.