In re World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Merger Litigation

EFiled: May 27 2026 07:57AM EDT
Transaction ID 79564177
Case No. 2023-1166-JTL
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE WORLD WRESTLING CONSOLIDATED
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. MERGER C.A. No. 2023-1166-JTL
LITIGATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION

Date Submitted: May 13, 2026
Date Decided: May 26, 2026

Kimberly A. Evans, Lindsay K. Faccenda, Irene R. Lax, Robert Erikson, BLOCK &
LEVITON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo, Anthony M. Calvano,
Tayler D. Bolton, Alexander J. Rigby, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Jason M. Leviton, Nathan Abelman,
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Rebecca Boon, Mark Lebovitch,
Jonathan D’Errico, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New
York, New York; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo, Richard N. Lozano, ROBBINS
LLP, San Diego, California; Richard A. Maniskas, RM LAW, P.C., Berwyn,
Pennsylvania; Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Michael A. Pittenger, T. Brad Davey, Nicholas D. Mozal, Adriane M. Kappauf, Megan
R. Thomas, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;
Sandra C. Goldstein, Stefan Atkinson, Haley S. Stern, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP,
New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendant Vincent K. McMahon.

William M. Lafferty, Ryan D. Stottmann, Alexandra M. Cumings, Jacob M. Perrone,
Jialu Zou, Anneliese Ostrom, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Michele D. Johnson, Kristin N. Murphy, Ryan A. Walsh,
Allison O’Hara, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Costa Mesa, California; Colleen C.
Smith, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San Diego, California; Jordan Mundell,
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San Francisco, California; Attorneys for Defendants
Nick Khan, Paul Levesque, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson.

LASTER, V.C.
The plaintiffs contend that a corporation’s controlling stockholder steered a

sale of the company to his longtime friend. In return, the controlling stockholder

received a senior role at the post-transaction company and help dealing with a federal

investigation into his alleged sexual misconduct. Discovery revealed that the

controlling stockholder and the company’s senior officers communicated using

ephemeral messages.

Signal is a messaging application. Users can adjust its auto-deletion settings

to apply to all their chats or to individual chats. Signal’s default setting preserves

messages indefinitely, but the user can enable auto-deletion for all chats. For

individual chats, any participant can enable auto-deletion or adjust the setting for all

participants in the chat. That means that one participant can cause messages on

another participant’s application to disappear.

After receiving litigation holds, the controlling stockholder and the senior

officers did not take any steps to check the settings on their Signal apps and chats.

Not only that, but they manually changed the auto-deletion settings for individual

Signal chats to implement short-fuse destruction periods measured in hours or less.

Those changes resulted in the loss of the existing messages in those chats and meant

that any future messages would quickly disappear.

The plaintiffs moved for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence, including

electronically stored information (“ESI”). This decision finds that spoliation occurred

and that the controlling stockholder and the senior officers acted recklessly—at a

minimum—in allowing the spoliation to occur.
As a consequence, the court will presume the truth of a limited number of facts

relating to the conduct and motivations of two defendants: the controlling stockholder

and the senior officer who openly encouraged Signal use. Presuming those facts to be

true forces the defendants to deal with the evidentiary uncertainty that the Signal

users created. The defendants remain free to present their case at trial and convince

the court to find differently.

In addition, the court will elevate the standard of proof for overcoming the

presumed facts from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing

evidence. Elevating the burden recognizes that the plaintiffs lack access to the

spoliated evidence and therefore cannot use it in their case in chief or to impeach the

defendants’ testimony. Elevating the standard of proof levels the playing field by

forcing the defendants to make a convincing case for their position.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts are drawn from the operative complaint and the parties’ submissions

in connection with the sanctions motion.1 What follows are not formal factual

findings, but rather how the record appears at this stage of the case.

A. Vince And The Company

Vincent K. McMahon is a larger-than-life figure in the world of professional

wrestling. He co-founded World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“WWE” or the

1 Citations in theform “Compl. ¶ __” refer to paragraphs of the operative
complaint. Citations in the form “Ex. __ at __” refer to exhibits the plaintiffs
submitted in connection with their motion for sanctions and reply brief.

2
“Company”) in 1982 with his wife Linda McMahon.2 From 1982 until 2009, Vince

served as WWE’s Chairman, and Linda served as CEO. After Linda left the Company

in 2009, Vince took over as CEO while continuing to serve as Chairman. Vince was

always the Company’s controlling stockholder with the ability to exercise a

supermajority of its outstanding voting power.3

Before the merger challenged in this litigation, the Company principally

engaged in the production and distribution of wrestling entertainment content and

related products. Its stock traded publicly on the New York Stock Exchange under

the ticker symbol “WWE.”

B. The Misconduct Allegations

In March and April 2022, the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”)

received a series of anonymous emails alleging that Vince had a sexual relationship

with a former Company employee and paid $3 million to cover it up. Other women

came forward with additional allegations of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and

hush-money payments.

2 My ordinary practice is to refer to individuals by surnames without honorifics.

Because there are multiple individuals involved in the case with the surname
McMahon, this decision uses their first names after their initial appearance. That
usage is for clarity. It is not intended to imply familiarity or convey disrespect.

3 As of April 2, 2023, Vince owned (i) 28,682,948 shares of high-vote Class B

common stock and (ii) 69,157 shares of Class A common stock. Through his holdings,
Vince could wield 81% of the Company’s outstanding voting power.

3
In June 2022, the Board formed a special committee to investigate the

allegations (the “Special Committee”). The results of the Special Committee’s

investigation have not been made public, but the Wall Street Journal published an

article detailing survivor reports about sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and hush-

money payments totaling nearly $15 million.

C. The Misconduct Hold

On June 21, 2022, WWE’s Assistant General Counsel circulated a legal hold

notice addressing the misconduct allegations against Vince (the “Misconduct Hold”).

The recipients included Vince, his Chief of Staff Brad Blum, Company President Nick

Khan, Chief Content Officer Paul Levesque, and his daughter and Company

executive Stephanie McMahon.4 It stated:

On June 15, 2022, an article was published by the Wall Street Journal
which reported that WWE’s board of directors has been conducting an
investigation into: a purported relationship involving . . . [Vince]
McMahon and a former WWE employee; a monetary payment allegedly
made by [Vince] to the former employee; a separation agreement
allegedly entered into by the Company and the former employee; and,
purported additional relationships between [Vince] . . . and one or more
Company employees that also involve allegations of sexual
relationships, monetary payments and related agreements (the
“Matter”).5

The Misconduct Hold instructed its recipients that that they must “preserve and

retain all documents and ESI described in this Record Hold Notice.”6

4 See Ex. 1.

5 Id. at 1.

6 Id. (emphasis in original).

4
The Misconduct Hold specified that the recipients “must suspend any

procedures which you control that could delete, destroy or alter any

documents or ESI, including emails, PowerPoint slides, presentations,

spreadsheets, electronic documents, hard copy documents or other

materials that may be relevant to the Matter.”7 The legal hold specifically

referred to “instant messages” and “text messaging.”8 The legal hold later reiterated

that “you must take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the

destruction or deletion of documents.”9 The legal hold further emphasized that

“[i]f your settings for emails, text messages or otherwise includes automatic

deletion protocols, it is your responsibility to ensure that Relevant

Documents, including relevant emails and text messages, are preserved.”10

The Misconduct Hold made clear that it applied to documents created in the

future. It stated: “The duty to preserve Relevant Documents applies not just to

documents that already exist, but also to documents created in the future

(including new emails). Accordingly, be sure to preserve all hard copy and

electronic Relevant Documents that you create or that you receive in the future.”11

7 Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).

8 Id. at 3.

9 Id. (emphasis in original).

10 Id. (emphasis in original).

11 Id. (emphasis in original).

5
The Misconduct Hold cast a wide net. After instructing recipients to retain

documents relevant to Vince’s alleged misconduct, the Misconduct Hold identified

more specific categories, including:

• “All documents that relate to or potentially relate to, involve, or concern the
allegations against Vincent K. McMahon.”

• “All documents that relate to or potentially relate to, involve, or concern an
alleged relationship between Vincent K. McMahon and any employee of
WWE.”

• “All documents that relate to or potentially relate to, involve, or concern any
investigation conducted by WWE regarding an alleged relationship between
alleged relationship between Vincent K. McMahon and any employee of
WWE.”

• “All documents that relate to or potentially relate to, involve, or concern any
agreements between WWE and any WWE employee in connection with the
Matter.”12

The Misconduct Hold did not suggest or imply that the categories were exclusive. In

other words, a document relevant both to a topic identified in the Misconduct Hold

and another topic would fall within the scope of the Misconduct Hold.

D. Vince’s Hiatus

On July 22, 2022, one month after the issuance of the Misconduct Hold, Vince

retired from his roles as CEO and Chairman. Stephanie took over as Chair. She and

Khan became co-CEOs.

On August 5, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice sent WWE a request for

information regarding Vince’s alleged misconduct. That same day, Khan manually

12 Id. at 2.

6
changed the auto-delete setting for a Signal chat with Vince to delete messages after

one hour. The preceding day, Blum had manually changed the auto-delete setting for

a Signal chat with Vince to delete messages after one hour.

E. Endeavor Approaches Vince About A Deal.

Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. (“Endeavor”) is a global sports and

entertainment company that owns and operates sports properties. One of its

subsidiaries owns and manages the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”).

Endeavor’s stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol

“EDR.”

Ari Emanuel is the CEO of Endeavor. He and Vince have been friends for over

twenty years. Mark Shapiro is the President and Chief Operating Officer for

Endeavor.

On July 22, 2022, the day Vince resigned from his roles at WWE, Shapiro

texted with another senior executive at Endeavor. He wrote:

Nick [Khan] and Stephanie are going to take over the WWE for the next
nine months. At the end of the nine months Vince [will] be back with a
new board or he will take the company private or he will sell it/coming
to us. The race is on. The courtship is on.13

The other executive replied, “Let’s go.”14 Shapiro’s message links the eventual merger

to Vince’s hiatus from WWE and the misconduct allegations that caused it.

13 Ex. 3.

14 Id.

7
On August 8, 2022, Emanuel invited Vince to lunch on August 10. Vince

suggested bringing Khan and Stephanie. Emanuel was enthusiastic.

Jeff Sine is another key player in the story. He is an investment banker with

The Raine Group (“Raine”) and has served as Emanuel’s longtime financial advisor.

In preparation for the August 10 meeting, Sine sent Emanuel a presentation titled

“Project Stunner” that described a potential deal with WWE.

During the lunch on August 10, Vince, Khan, Stephanie, and Emanuel

discussed a potential transaction between Endeavor and WWE. That same day,

Stephanie manually changed the auto-delete setting for a Signal chat with Vince to

delete messages after one hour.

Eleven days later, on August 21, 2022, Sine met with Vince and reviewed a

version of the Project Stunner presentation. On August 22, Emanuel texted Vince to

say, “I know you met with Jeff Sine yesterday.”15 That same day, Blum manually

changed the auto-delete setting for a Signal chat with Vince to delete messages after

eight hours.

Emanuel and Vince set up a call for the following day, August 23, 2022. On

August 28, Sine proposed to switch sides and represent Vince instead of Endeavor in

connection with any transaction. Vince responded enthusiastically.16

15 Ex. 5.

16 Ex. 7 (“I Love that idea Jeff” with two thumbs-up emojis).

8
F. Vince’s Discussions With Emanuel Intensify.

In September 2022, Emanuel told Vince expressly that if WWE engaged in a

transaction with Endeavor, then he could help Vince with the federal investigation

into his alleged misconduct at WWE. In one voicemail message, Emanuel stated:

I spoke to my lawyer from Latham. Just FYI. Everybody at the DOJ is
former Latham lawyers so on that side will be helpful. SEC of course is
SEC, but that’s just a penalty. As it relates to everything else, yes we
can indemnify you and we will. If it’s criminal of course you can’t stop
criminal, but this is not criminal. Call me when you get a chance.17

In another voicemail message, Emanuel stated: “I really do think that we all need to

get together and talk through all the issues. Because I think whether it be the DOJ

or anything, there’s ways around this to figure this out, and I don’t know what you’re

hearing or thinking, so give me a call if you have five seconds.”18 Both messages link

the deal with Endeavor to the misconduct allegations against Vince.

In November 2022, the discussions about a deal intensified. Between

November 10 and 12, Sine and Emanuel had nine separate telephone calls. On

November 20, Vince asked Raine to analyze a management buyout (“MBO”). On

November 21, Vince and Sine had an eight minute call. That same day, Vince asked

a colleague for a draft letter pledging to reimburse the Company for the costs of

investigating the misconduct allegations. Also that same day, Khan repeatedly

17 Ex. 8.

18 Ex. 9.

9
changed the auto-delete setting for a Signal chat with Vince. As a result of those

changes, the chat was set to delete messages after one hour.

G. Vince Returns.

On December 13, 2022, Vince, Khan, and Stephanie met with Emanuel and

Shapiro to continue the merger discussions. Immediately after the dinner, Vince left

Sine a message telling him that he had a “very good meeting” with Emanuel and that

“I think it probably is the best thing to do is to go forward with the deal with Ari.”19

He added that “it solves a lot of problems” and that “together I think it’s a stronger

situation than either one of us on our own.”20 He concluded that while he had not

committed to Emanuel, he was “pretty sure that’s the way I want to go now” because

it was “easier, faster, and all that other kind of stuff.”21

One week later, on December 20, 2022, Vince sent a letter to the Board

proposing that the Company launch a review of strategic alternatives, including a

potential sale. Vince noted that any potential counterparty would likely want to speak

with him and have his support as the Company’s majority stockholder. He therefore

proposed that the directors invite him back as “Executive Chairman.” He asked the

Board to respond by January 3, 2023.

19 Ex. 11.

20 Id.

21 Id.

10
By letter dated December 27, 2022, the Board advised Vince that it would

initiate a strategic review process. The Board also stated it would welcome Vince to

play a role in the strategic review process but rejected his proposal to return as a

director. The Board offered to enter into a settlement with Vince under which the

Company would not sue him if Vince agreed to pay for the millions of dollars the

Company had incurred in investigation-related expenses.

By letter dated December 31, 2022, Vince told the Board that his return to the

Company was necessary and that the Board’s position was unacceptable. He stated

that “unless I have direct involvement and input as Executive Chairman from the

outset, I will not be able to support or approve any media rights deals or strategic

transaction (including any commitments made by or on behalf of the Company

regarding a potential transaction or process).”22 On the same day Vince sent his letter,

Blum manually changed the auto-delete setting for a Signal chat with Vince to delete

messages after one day.

On January 3, 2023, the Board reiterated that it would not be in the Company’s

best interests for Vince to return to the Company because of pending government

investigations. Vince called Emanuel three times that day. That same day, Khan

manually changed the auto-delete setting for a Signal chat with Vince to delete any

messages after three hours.

22 Compl. ¶ 64.

11
On January 5, 2023, before receiving the Board’s response, Vince acted by

written consent to remove three independent directors. He replaced them with two

allies and himself. The next day, two independent directors resigned in protest. One

was the Company’s lead independent director. The Company then issued an

announcement stating that “the Board ceased to be comprised of a majority of

independent directors.”23 That same day, Khan manually changed the auto-delete

setting for a Signal chat with Vince, Levesque, and Stephanie to delete any messages

after three hours.

On January 10, 2023, Vince resumed his post as Executive Chair. Khan

continued as sole CEO. Vince’s daughter Stephanie resigned to facilitate those

changes. That same day, the Company announced that it was exploring strategic

alternatives.

The message Shapiro sent to his colleague at Endeavor on the day Vince

resigned had predicted correctly what would happen. It was just happening after six

months rather than nine.

H. The Sale Process Begins.

On January 12, 2023, the Board held a special meeting to discuss the

exploration of strategic alternatives. On January 13, 2023, WWE retained Raine—

Emanuel’s longtime financial advisor—as a third financial advisor. WWE had already

retained J.P. Morgan and Moelis.

23 Id. ¶ 38.

12
That day also saw Vince sign a settlement agreement resolving claims of

alleged sexual misconduct. He also spoke with Emanuel by phone. That same day,

Vince manually changed the auto-deletion settings for two Signal chats, one with

Khan and the other with Levesque. Vince changed both to delete after one day. Blum

separately changed the auto-deletion setting for a Signal chat with Vince and Khan to

delete after one day.

On January 17, 2023, the Board’s financial advisors—Raine, J.P. Morgan, and

Moelis—began contacting potential bidders. Sine and Emanuel spoke repeatedly

during January. Sine called Emanuel eight times, and Emanuel contacted Sine

twenty-one times.

I. The Sale Process Hold

On January 19, 2023, WWE’s Assistant General Counsel circulated another

legal hold notice, this time addressing matters related to Vince’s return to the

Company and the decision to evaluate strategic alternatives (the “Sale Process

Hold”).24 The recipients included Vince, Stephanie, Khan, Blum, and Levesque. It

stated:

The Company has become aware of certain lawsuits that have been filed
relating to recent events at WWE, including changes to the composition
of the Board, amendments to the Company’s bylaws, changes to the
Company’s executive team, and the investigation by the Special
Committee of the Board. In addition, investigations by certain
governmental entities, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the

24 See Ex. 13.

13
Southern District of New York and the Securities & Exchange
Commission (SEC) remain ongoing.25

The Sale Process Hold explained that “it is essential that WWE and its employees

preserve and retain all documents and ESI (including emails, texts and other

electronic communications) described in this Record Hold Notice.”26

Like the Misconduct Hold, the Sale Process Hold specified that the recipients

“must suspend any procedures which you control that could delete, destroy

or alter any documents or ESI, including emails, texts and other electronic

communications, PowerPoint slides, presentations, spreadsheets,

electronic documents, hard copy documents or other materials that may be

relevant.”27 Like the Misconduct Hold, the Sale Process Hold specifically referred to

“instant messages” and “text messaging.”28 It later reiterated that “you must take

all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the destruction or deletion of

documents.”29 The legal hold further emphasized that “[i]f your electronic mail

or text settings include automatic deletion protocols, it is your

25 Id. at 1.

26 Id. (emphasis in original).

27 Id. (emphasis in original).

28 Id. at 3.

29 Id. at 3–4 (emphasis in original).

14
responsibility to ensure that Relevant Documents, including relevant

electronic mail and text messages, are preserved.”30

In addition to instructing recipients to retain documents generally relevant to

the litigations and investigations, the Sale Process Hold identified more specific

categories, including all documents and communications concerning:

• “The investigation by the Special Committee”;

• “The decision by McMahon to temporarily step down as CEO”;

• “Correspondence between McMahon and the Board”;

• “The written consent of January 5, 2023”;

• “The negotiation and/or re-negotiation of WWE’s media rights deals”; and

• “The recently-announced review of strategic alternatives.”31

Like the Misconduct Hold, the Sale Process Hold made clear that it applied to

documents created in the future, stating: “The duty to preserve Relevant Documents

applies not just to documents that already exist, but also to documents created in

the future (including new electronic communications). Accordingly, be sure to

preserve all hard copy and electronic Relevant Documents that you create or that you

receive in the future.”32

30 Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).

31 Id. at 2.

32 Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). The Company issued another hold notice on

May 23, 2023, that went into greater detail about the merger. See Ex. 14. The third
hold did not alter any of the preservation obligations already in existence.

15
J. The Sale Process Continues.

On February 6, 2023, the Company began entering into confidentiality

agreements with potential bidders. The next day, Endeavor submitted a proposal to

combine its UFC subsidiary with the Company to form TKO Group Holdings, Inc.

(“TKO”). Endeavor envisioned a transaction in which WWE stockholders could choose

between cash or stock, with the consideration valued at $88.43 per share, and with

Endeavor paying a maximum of $2 billion in cash. If no Company stockholders elected

to receive cash, resulting in the greatest possible dilution for Endeavor, then

Endeavor would own 57% of the combined business.

On February 24, 2023, the Company told interested bidders that any written

indications of interest must be received by March 13. The Company did not tell

potential bidders that Endeavor had submitted its offer weeks before, that Endeavor

was already far along in its due diligence process, or that Emanuel and Shapiro had

already met with Vince and Khan to discuss Endeavor’s offer.

By March 13, 2023, the Company had received three other expressions of

interest in a whole company sale. Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty”) proposed to

acquire the Company for cash in the range of $95 to $100 per share. KKR proposed

to acquire the Company for cash in the range of $90 to $97.50 per share. Base 10

proposed to acquire the Company for a mix of stock and cash in the range of $76.83

per share. None of the bidders gave any indication that they intended to retain Vince.

16
K. A Post-Deal Position For Vince Becomes A Key Term.

Vince and the Board did not respond substantively to Liberty, KKR, or Base

10. They negotiated exclusively with Endeavor, even though its proposal carried a

lower value than the Liberty and KKR offers.

On March 21, 2023, Vince and the Board countered Endeavor’s proposal with

an all-stock deal with no cash election. The surviving company’s board would have

eleven seats, six appointed by Endeavor and five by WWE. Emanuel would be the

CEO of the combined company. The five WWE directors would select the Executive

Chair. The term sheet implied a value for WWE of $95.66 per share. That value fell

at the low end of Liberty’s opening range and toward the upper end of KKR’s range.

On March 22, 2023, Vince and Khan met with Emanuel and Shapiro to discuss

the deal. They agreed in principle to the all-equity consideration and the 51/49% split.

On March 23, 2023, Endeavor submitted a revised term sheet that

incorporated the new 51/49% split. It also proposed that Vince would (1) serve as

Executive Chair of the combined company until his death, resignation, or incapacity,

(2) select five of the eleven directors on the combined company’s board, and (3) enjoy

veto rights over various corporate actions. Those rights were later incorporated in a

governance agreement.

The merger agreement was finalized on April 1, 2023. At the time, Emanuel,

Vince, and Khan were together at Wrestlemania 39 in Los Angeles, California. On

April 3, the Company announced the deal. It closed on September 12.

17
L. This Litigation

Various plaintiffs now representing a class of the Company’s stockholders filed

suit in November 2023. They contend that Vince and his fellow directors breached

their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger. One of the plaintiffs’ principal

theories asserts that Vince steered the deal to Endeavor and his friend Emanuel

because he knew he would have a role with the surviving company, receive help with

the legal fallout from his alleged sexual misconduct, and be indemnified.

Discovery has been extensive. As part of discovery, Vince disclosed that federal

agents had seized his iPhone and iPad (the “Seized Devices”) in July 2023 as part of

their investigation into his alleged misconduct. Vince disclosed that there could be

discoverable information on the Seized Devices that was not otherwise available

because Signal stores data locally.

In September 2025, the government returned the Seized Devices. Vince’s

counsel conducted a forensic analysis of the Seized Devices that identified when each

Signal chat was created, who participated in it, and whether any participant adjusted

the retention settings. The contents of the chats, however, were no longer available.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The plaintiffs contend that Vince, Stephanie, Khan, Blum, and Levesque (the

“Signal Users”) spoliated evidence by not checking the Signal application’s message

settings to ensure that messages were preserved after receiving the Misconduct Hold

18
and later the Sale Process Hold, then manually changing individual chat settings so

that prior messages would be destroyed and future messages deleted.33

“Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, the failure

to preserve evidence properly for another’s use, or the improper concealment of

evidence.”34 Court of Chancery Rule 37(e) addresses the failure to preserve ESI. It

states:

If ESI that should have been preserved in the reasonable anticipation of
or actual notice of imminent litigation is lost because a party failed to
take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or
replaced through additional discovery, the court:

(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of information, may
order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or

(2) only upon finding that the party acted recklessly or with the intent
to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation, may,
among other things:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the
party; or

(B) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.35

Signal chats are ESI, so Rule 37(e) applies.

33 The plaintiffs also contend that Khan deleted specific text messages and that

Vince and Blum failed to preserve hard copy documents. The Signal messages are the
main event. The remedy that the court imposes for the spoliation of the Signal chats
also remedies any spoliation involving specific text messages and hard copy
documents.

34 Goldstein v. Denner, 310 A.3d 548, 567 (Del. Ch. 2024).

35 Ct. Ch. R. 37(e) (formatting altered).

19
To obtain sanctions for a party’s failure to preserve ESI, the requesting party

must show (i) the responding party had a duty to preserve the ESI, (ii) the ESI is lost,

(iii) the loss is attributable to the responding party’s failure to take reasonable steps

to preserve the ESI, and (iv) the requesting party suffered prejudice. For an adverse

inference or case-dispositive sanctions, the plaintiff must show that the responding

party acted recklessly or intentionally when failing to preserve ESI.36

A. The Threshold Issue Of Timing

When considering a motion addressing spoliation, there is always a threshold

question of timing.37 The defendants argue that the court should defer ruling on the

plaintiffs’ motion until after trial.

Rule 37 does not contain any specific reference to the timing of the filing of a

motion seeking spoliation sanctions.38 “Delaware trial courts have inherent power to

control their dockets.”39 That authority includes determining how a case should

proceed for the “orderly adjudication of claims.”40

36 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 557.

37 In re Facebook Inc. Deriv. Litig., 2025 WL 262194, at *6 (Del. Ch. Jan. 21,

2025); Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 569.

38 See Ct. Ch. R. 37; Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 570.

39 Solow v. Aspect Res., LLC, 46 A.3d 1074, 1075 (Del. 2012).

40 Unbound P’rs Ltd. P’ship v. Invoy Hldgs. Inc., 251 A.3d 1016, 1030 (Del.

Super. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

20
As a general matter, Rule 37 is a rule about discovery, implying that a motion

under Rule 37(e) should generally be part of the discovery process. Nevertheless,

determining when to address a spoliation motion “rests in the discretion of the court

based on the facts of each case.”41 Pertinent factors include “the nature of the

[spoliation] issue, the stage of the case, the court’s ability to provide case-specific

relief, and any scheduling order that might apply.”42 “If a party seeks an order

compelling the defendants to provide additional discovery or to pay for the movant to

conduct additional discovery, then it would be foolish to defer the motion until trial.”43

Along similar lines, “[i]f a ruling on the motion will help the parties prepare for trial

or limit the issues to be addressed at trial, then it often will make sense to address

the motion before trial.”44 But “[i]f the motion turns on evidentiary issues that the

court will evaluate at trial, then it will make sense to defer the motion until trial.”45

Here, the motion rests on undisputed facts regarding the failure to preserve

ESI and affirmative steps to change automatic deletion settings for ESI. The motion

does not turn on disputed facts that would warrant an evidentiary hearing or post-

trial adjudication. The defendants argue that the court should defer ruling on the

41 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 571.

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Id.

45 Id.

21
motion so it can observe the Signal Users’ credibility before making a finding of

intent, but recklessness provides an adequate basis for the sanctions the plaintiffs

request.

Equally important, the plaintiffs seek remedies that will affect how trial

unfolds. Whether the court grants those sanctions will affect how the parties prepare

for trial and present their evidence. The proper time to consider the plaintiffs’ motion

is now.46

B. Was There A Duty To Preserve The Signal Chats?

Under Rule 37(e), the first question is whether the ESI “should have been

preserved.”47 “Rule 37(e) does not apply . . . when information or evidence is lost

before a duty to preserve attaches.”48

A party must “preserve potentially relevant evidence as soon as the party

either actually anticipates litigation or reasonably should have anticipated

46 United States District Judge Iain D. Johnston has provided particularly

helpful and characteristically insightful guidance on the timing of spoliation motions.
See Groves Inc. v. R.C. Bremer Mktg. Assocs., 2024 WL 4871368 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22,
2024). Applying his framework, the court here has access to the specific facts
necessary to decide the motion, and the remedy sought will affect how the parties
approach trial, which is the next key stage in the case. Cf. id. at *5–6. But as he
explains, when to rule on a spoliation motion requires a case-by-case call. See id. at
*6.

47 Ct. Ch. R. 37(e).

48 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 571 (quoting Living Color Enters., Inc. v. New Era

Aquaculture, Ltd., 2016 WL 1105297, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2016)).

22
litigation.”49 “A party is not obligated to preserve every shred of paper, every e-mail

or electronic document.”50 But a party is obligated to “preserve what it knows, or

reasonably should know, is relevant to the action, is reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to be requested during

discovery and/or is the subject of a pending discovery request.”51 “An organization’s

decision to circulate a litigation hold notice is a strong indication that a duty to

preserve evidence exists, because it shows that the organization subjectively

anticipated litigation.”52

The Signal Users accept that an obligation to preserve documents existed on

June 21, 2022, when the Company circulated the Misconduct Hold, but they maintain

that the Misconduct Hold only encompassed materials relating to Vince’s alleged

misconduct. As they see it, the Misconduct Hold did not explicitly encompass the sale

process or the merger. Nor could it, because the sale process did not formally start

until February 2023, and the merger would not take place until months later. The

defendants conclude that no duty to preserve sale-process-related documents arose

until January 19, 2023, when the Company circulated the Sale Process Hold.

49 Id. (footnote omitted); see also Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates, 981 A.2d 1175, 1187

(Del. Ch. 2009).

50 Seibold v. Camulos P’rs LP, 2012 WL 4076182, at *23 (Del. Ch. Sept. 17,

2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

51 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

52 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 573.

23
The defendants’ argument falls short because the lost Signal chats could

readily address both Vince’s alleged misconduct and the possibility of a transaction.

The evidence adduced in discovery suggests the two were linked. Shapiro

immediately understood the connection between Vince’s departure and a future deal.

Emanuel expressly connected the two concepts in his voicemails. The Signal chats

likely included communications addressing both issues.

The Misconduct Hold put the Signal Users on notice that they needed to retain

communications related to Vince’s alleged misconduct, including communications

relating to Vince’s alleged misconduct and the merger. As of June 21, 2022, the date

of the Misconduct Hold, the defendants took on an affirmative duty to preserve their

Signal chats.

The defendants are also incorrect to assert that no duty to preserve sale-

process-related documents arose until January 19, 2023, when the Company issued

the Sale Process Hold. The duty to preserve information indisputably applied after

that date, but the duty actually arose earlier.

In M&A transactions, a duty to preserve can arise before a litigation hold is

issued because litigation involving M&A transactions is sufficiently common that

sophisticated parties anticipate it.53 In August 2022, Vince met with Emanuel to

discuss a potential transaction, then later met with Sine to discuss a deal. In

September 2022, Emanuel made at least two offers to help Vince with the federal

53 Id.

24
investigation into his alleged misconduct, as long as WWE engaged in a transaction

with Endeavor. By November 2022, discussions about Vince returning to the

Company and pursuing a merger with Endeavor had reached a serious stage. On

November 20, Vince asked Raine to analyze an MBO. On November 21, Vince and

Sine had an eight minute call. That same day, Vince asked President and Chief

Financial Officer Frank Riddick for a draft letter pledging to reimburse the Company

for the costs of investigating the misconduct allegations.

Vince’s plan to return to the Company and pursue a merger in the face of the

misconduct allegations against him was a high-risk strategy that would draw

litigation. Although it is difficult to mark a specific time when the Signal Users

reasonably should have anticipated litigation, that time had arrived by August 31,

2022. As of that date, the Signal Users had a duty to preserve evidence relating to

Vince’s return and a potential sale of the Company.

C. Are The Signal Chats Lost?

The second question in the Rule 37(e) analysis is whether the ESI “is lost.”54

“Information is lost for purposes of Rule 37(e) only if it is irretrievable from another

source, including other custodians.”55 “Because [ESI] often exists in multiple

54 Ct. Ch. R. 37(e).

55 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 574.

25
locations, loss from one source may often be harmless when substitute information

can be found elsewhere.”56

The Signal Users admit that the Signal chats are lost. They cannot be

recovered or obtained from other sources.

D. Were The Signal Chats Lost Due To A Failure To Take Reasonable
Steps To Preserve Them?

The third question in the Rule 37(e) analysis is whether the ESI was lost

“because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it.”57 When a party has a

duty to preserve evidence, that “party must act reasonably to preserve the

information that it knows, or reasonably should know, could be relevant to the

litigation, including what an opposing party is likely to request.”58 The party need not

preserve all documents in its possession; “it must preserve what it knows and

reasonably ought to know is relevant to possible litigation and is in its possession,

custody, or control.”59 In determining reasonableness, a court “should be sensitive to

the party’s sophistication with regard to litigation in evaluating preservation efforts;

some litigants, particularly individual litigants, may be less familiar with

56 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s notes).

57 Ct. Ch. R. 37(e).

58 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 576.

59 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

26
preservation obligations than others who have considerable experience in

litigation.”60

Simply circulating a litigation hold is not sufficient.61 “The organization must

take steps to ensure that the recipients of the hold understand what it means and

abide by it.”62 “The organization also must suspend or modify routine document

retention or document destruction policies so that evidence is not lost.”63

Individuals must take similar steps. “[T]hey must disable auto-delete functions

that otherwise would destroy emails or texts.”64 “They also must back up data from

personal devices before disposing of them.”65 Failing to disable the auto-delete setting

or back up messages before deletion demonstrates that a defendant acted

unreasonably.66 Individuals may not claim ignorance. “After receiving a litigation

60 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s notes).

61 Id. at 576–77.

62 Id. at 577.

63 Id.

64 Id.

65 Id.

66 See id. at 577–78.

27
hold, an individual must take steps to determine what is necessary to comply.”67 This

includes learning what is necessary “to prevent destruction or automatic deletion.”68

The Signal Users failed to take reasonable steps to preserve ESI. Starting on

June 21, 2022, the Signal Users had a duty to preserve ESI relating to the topics

identified in the Misconduct Hold, including any ESI about those topics that touched

on a sale process or deal with Endeavor. Starting on August 31, the Signal Users had

a duty to preserve ESI relating to Vince’s anticipated return to the Company, the sale

process, and a deal with Endeavor.

The Signal Users did not take reasonable steps to identify and preserve likely

sources of ESI. Instead, they took affirmative steps to delete likely sources of ESI.

Khan both used Signal and encouraged others to use it. After receiving the

Misconduct Hold, Khan failed to disable auto-deletion on any Signal chats. Instead,

he frequently adjusted the Signal retention settings for individual chats so that past

messages would be lost and future messages deleted. After receiving the Sale Process

Hold, Khan again failed to disable auto-deletion on any Signal chats.

Instead, Khan encouraged others to shift to Signal. For example, during the

middle of the sale process, Khan had the following exchange with Vince:69

67 Id. at 578.

68 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

69 Ex. 22.

28
Blum used Signal and its ephemeral message feature. After receiving the

Misconduct Hold and the Sale Process Hold, Blum did not do anything to check the

settings on his phone to ensure that auto-delete was not in operation on any Signal

chats. Like Khan and Vince, Blum manually changed auto-deletion settings for

Signal chats so that past messages would be lost and future messages deleted.

Stephanie used Signal and its ephemeral message feature. After receiving the

Misconduct Hold and the Sale Process Hold, Stephanie did not do anything to check

the settings on her phone to ensure that auto-delete was not in operation on any

Signal chats. Like Khan, Vince, and Blum, Stephanie manually changed auto-

deletion settings so that past messages would be lost and future messages deleted.

Levesque used Signal and its ephemeral message feature. After receiving the

Misconduct Hold and the Sale Process Hold, Levesque did not do anything to check

the settings on his phone to ensure that auto-delete was not in operation on any

Signal chats.

By not taking steps to disable the auto-delete settings on their Signal chats,

the Signal Users failed to take reasonable steps to collect and preserve the ESI.

Instead, they affirmatively changed the auto-delete settings to ensure prompt

deletion, and Khan selectively deleted text messages.

E. Prejudice

The imposition of sanctions for spoliation requires a showing of prejudice.

Absent prejudice, the failure to preserve ESI need not be remedied because, by

definition, no harm was done.

30
“Prejudice exists when spoliation prevents a party from obtaining and

potentially using relevant evidence.”72 Determining whether prejudice exists is

difficult because spoliation creates an evidentiary vacuum. Proving the relevance of

the lost evidence is difficult “precisely because the evidence no longer exists.”73

The prejudice analysis starts by requiring that the requesting party “provide

some minimal explanation as to why the lost ESI could have been relevant and either

admissible in its own right or reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.”74 The mere fact that evidence is lost is not sufficient to demonstrate

prejudice; the requesting party must “provide a plausible explanation as to why the

evidence could have been relevant such that the failure to preserve is prejudicial.”75

“‘Prejudice’ under Rule 37(e) includes the thwarting of a party’s ability to obtain the

evidence it needs for its case.”76

Once the party seeking sanctions meets that initial burden, then the party that

failed to preserve the ESI must convince the court that the lost ESI did not result in

72 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 583.

73 Id.; see Hollis v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., 603 F. Supp. 3d 611, 623 (N.D.

Ill. 2022) (“Establishing prejudice can be a dicey proposition because the ESI is
gone.”).

74 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 585.

75 Id. at 584.

76 Hollis, 603 F. Supp. 3d at 623; accord DR Distributors, LLC v. 21 Century

Smoking, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 3d 839, 981 (N.D. Ill. 2021).

31
prejudice. Possible reasons include that the material could not have been relevant,

would not have been admissible or potentially have led to the discovery of admissible

evidence, or otherwise could not have been used by the requesting party to its

advantage.77

Here, the plaintiffs have provided a plausible explanation as to why the

evidence could have been relevant such that its loss is prejudice. The Signal Users

communicated about Company business, Vince’s alleged misconduct, Vince’s return

to the Company, the sale process, and the eventual merger. The record reveals

extensive backchannelling between and among Vince, Khan, Sine, and Emanuel. The

Signal Users specifically changed the auto-deletion settings for individual chats.78

They took those actions at times that corresponded with key events in the timeline.

It is reasonable to infer that the lost ESI would have included candid communications

shedding light on the reasons for the merger.

The plaintiffs now lack access to that evidence. They cannot use the messages

as affirmative proof. They cannot use the messages to question witnesses. They

cannot use the messages to cross examine witnesses. The burden therefore shifts to

the spoliators to show a lack of prejudice.

To show that the lost messages did not result in prejudice, the Signal Users

argue that none of the spoliated documents were relevant. No one can know that.

77 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 585; accord Facebook, 2025 WL 262194, at *10.

78 Khan also selectively deleted text messages.

32
Instead, context suggests that the deleted Signal chats and messages were relevant.

At this point in the case, the record shows that the Signal Users discussed Vince’s

resignation, strategized about his legal and reputational difficulties, and engaged in

backchannel discussions about Vince’s return and a sale of the Company. It is far

more likely that the messages contained relevant evidence than that they did not.

Vince argues that because he and Emanuel met openly and left each other

voicemail messages about the deal and its link to his alleged misconduct, it makes no

sense that they would communicate ephemerally about the same topic. That does not

follow. Figures who make public statements do not only communicate in public.

Troves of internal communications typically exist regarding the public statements.

The same is true about figures who communicate via a discoverable channel while

also using ephemeral channels. The existence of the discoverable channel does not

foreclose the possibility of candid and probative content on the ephemeral channel. It

makes its existence more likely, not less likely.

Khan testified that his most frequent use of Signal was for dealing with a

foreign entity. Vince similarly testified he primarily communicated over email, text

messages, phone calls, and using his computer. Taking both statements as true does

not mean that neither used Signal chats for relevant and now lost communications.

Khan and Vince both used Signal and changed the auto-deletion settings for their

33
chats repeatedly between August 2022 and January 2023. The timing of those

changes suggests a close relationship to the matters at issue in this proceeding.79

The Signal Users also rely on their own testimony about their purported lack

of familiarity with Signal retention settings. Yet the evidence objectively shows that

the Signal Users frequently modified the retention settings for their chats. In light of

those frequent modifications, their denials cannot be credited.80 In any event, they

were reckless. After receiving the Misconduct Hold, they had a duty to take steps to

preserve ESI and consult with WWE’s in-house counsel if there was any uncertainty

or confusion.

Finally, the Signal Users argue that even if some deleted Signal messages were

relevant, losing a small number of messages against an expansive record does not

result in prejudice. To that end, they tout the total number of documents they

produced.

Discovery has been extensive, with TKO and Endeavor alone producing more

than 37,000 documents. Vince’s counsel engaged in particularly commendable efforts

79 The same is true for Khan’s selective deletion of individual texts. Although

context suggests that some of Khan’s selectively deleted texts likely lacked relevance
to this case, others suggest a close connection.

80 Vince and Khan gave testimony about Signal use that was notably strained.

E.g., Vince Dep. 323 (“Q. If you read that word backwards, it says Signal, right? A. I
don’t know. I didn’t bother reading it. Q. Langis is Signal? A. I don’t know. I’d have
to take my pencil out and do it. I’ll take your word for it.”); Khan Dep. 398 (“Q. Langis
backwards is Signal; right? A. Yes. Q. Why did you write Signal backwards? A. I have
no idea.”).

34
to gather, preserve, and produce evidence. But the comparison stresses a

denominator in search of a numerator, because it is impossible to know how many

messages were in the lost chat threads. More important, not all litigation documents

carry equal weight. The Signal Users selectively destroyed specific Signal chats and

messages. Because the Signal Users acted selectively, “it is likely that the most

sensitive and probative exchanges are gone.”81

F. The Sanctions Necessary To Cure The Prejudice

Rule 37(e) authorizes a range of sanctions to cure prejudice. The court can

deem certain facts to be true, preclude the use of certain evidence, strike particular

pleadings or claims, modify the burden of proof for particular issues, allow additional

discovery, enter default judgment, and award expenses.82

Before the court can draw an adverse inference or enter default judgment, the

court must conclude that the party “acted recklessly or with the intent to deprive

another party of the information’s use in the litigation.”83 “Delaware courts have

defined recklessness in the spoliation context as a conscious awareness of the risk

81 Facebook, 2025 WL 262194, at *11.

82 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 583; see also Ct. Ch. R. 37(b); Terramar Retail Ctrs.,

LLC v. Marion #2-Seaport Tr. U/A/D June 21, 2002, 2018 WL 6331622, at *14 (Del.
Ch. Dec. 4, 2018).

83 Ct. Ch. R. 37(e)(2).

35
that one’s action or inaction may cause evidence to be despoiled. Intentional

destruction simply means that the spoliator acted ‘with purpose.’”84

“For purposes of recklessness, knowledge of their duty to preserve

[communications] coupled with the loss of [communications] and the lack of any

explanation [is] dispositive.”85 The Signal Users acted recklessly—at a minimum—by

failing to check on the operation of the auto-delete function for their Signal messages,

changing the auto-delete settings for individual Signal chats, and selectively

destroying messages.

To remediate the prejudice, the plaintiffs ask the court to

• Presume that specified facts are true; and

• Require that the defendants can only overcome the presumed facts through
clear and convincing evidence.

Those are appropriate sanctions.

1. The Presumed Facts

The plaintiffs principally seek relief in the form of factual presumptions. They

do not ask the court to deem facts established. They only seek to shift the burden of

proof to the defendants on specific factual issues.

Shifting the burden of proof is a significant sanction but one warranted here.

The burden of proof “determine[s] what happens if there is no credible evidence on a

84 TR Invs., LLC v. Genger, 2009 WL 4696062, at *17 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2009)

(footnote omitted) (quoting Beard Rsch., 981 A.2d at 1191), aff’d in part, rev’d in part
on other grounds, 26 A.3d 180 (Del. 2011).

85 Goldstein v. Denner, 2024 WL 776033, at *16 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2024).

36
topic, or if there is some credible evidence, but not enough that either side could carry

a burden by a preponderance.”86 In such a case, the party with the burden of proof

loses. In a typical civil case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Shifting the

burden of proof changes who wins in the absence of sufficient credible evidence.

Because the Signal Users created the absence by selectively deleting Signal chats and

texts, they should appropriately bear the burden of that absence.

For purposes of this case, the court will presume the following:

• Emanuel’s promise to provide Vince with a continued role at any post-merger
company after a transaction influenced Vince’s decision-making with respect
to the merger.

• Emanuel’s offer of indemnification and other legal support related to pending
federal investigations of Vince’s alleged misconduct influenced Vince’s
decision-making with respect to the merger.

• Vince decided to pursue a transaction with Endeavor in 2022, before the
Company initiated the strategic review process.

• Khan communicated with Emanuel between August and December 2022 to
facilitate a transaction between WWE and Endeavor.

• Vince and Khan worked with Raine to steer the process toward a deal with
Endeavor and away from other potential bidders.

Those presumed facts represent a subset of the list the plaintiffs requested.

The defendants who are not Signal Users assert that presuming these facts is

unfairly prejudicial to them. That is not so. The presumed facts relate to the conduct

86 Goldstein, 310 A.3d at 586 (discussing how presumptions and burdens
operate).

37
of Vince and Khan. The court is not presuming that other defendants knew about

their actions or were involved.

Even in an entire fairness case, the actions of self-interested fiduciaries do not

necessarily result in liability for other defendants. “The entire fairness test is, at its

core, an inquiry designed to assess whether a self-dealing transaction should be

respected or set aside in equity. It has only a crude and potentially misleading

relationship to the liability any particular fiduciary has for involvement in a self-

dealing transaction.”87 A finding that a transaction is not entirely fair could lead to

transaction-based relief, such as an injunction, rescission, or an equitable

modification of the transaction’s terms.88 But to determine whether individual

fiduciaries should be held liable, a court must analyze each fiduciary’s conduct to

decide whether the fiduciary breached the duty of loyalty, including its subsidiary

element of good faith, or the duty of care.89 “The liability of the directors must be

determined on an individual basis because the nature of their breach of duty (if any),

and whether they are exculpated from liability for that breach, can vary for each

87 Venhill Ltd. P’ship v. Hillman, 2008 WL 2270488, at *22 (Del. Ch. June 3,

2008).

88 See, e.g., In re Loral Space & Commc’ns Inc., 2008 WL 4293781, at *32 (Del.

Ch. Sept. 19, 2008) (modifying terms of stock issuance to de facto controlling
stockholder after finding that terms were not entirely fair).

89 See Venhill, 2008 WL 2270488, at *22.

38
director.”90 Establishing presumed facts about Vince and Khan’s conduct does not

implicate the other defendants.

The defendants remain free to put on their case at trial. They can introduce

documents. They can call witnesses. Their witnesses may well testify credibly and

overcome the presumption. Nothing stops them from rebutting the presumed facts.

2. The Increased Standard Of Proof

The plaintiffs also ask the court to raise the standard the defendants must

meet to rebut the presumed facts. This is another significant sanction,91 but also a

logical and measured response to selective deletion. Imposing a higher burden

ensures that the defendants must convincingly overcome the uncertainty they

created.

In Genger, the court imposed a higher burden of proof and then went further,

holding that the spoliator “will be unable to prevail on any material factual issue if

the only evidence in support of his position is his own testimony.”92 Under that ruling,

“[a]bsent corroborating testimony or documents, [the spoliator’s] mere word will be

insufficient to meet his burden of persuasion.”93

90 In re Emerging Commc’ns, Inc. S’holders Litig., 2004 WL 1305745, at *38

(Del. Ch. May 3, 2004).

91 See James v. Nat’l Fin. LLC, 2014 WL 6845560, at *9 (Del. Ch. Dec. 5, 2014).

92 TR Invs., LLC v. Genger, 2010 WL 541687, at *2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 3, 2010).

93 Id.

39
In this case, the court will not go that far. The combination of a narrow set of

presumed facts and a heightened standard of proof is sufficient.

III. CONCLUSION

The motion for sanctions is granted.

40