In Hickles v. FedEx Corp. (D. Kan. Jan. 28, 2026), the court addressed spoliation issues involving deleted text messages and a missing work phone in an employment dispute involving discrimination, retaliation, and accommodation claims. Although FedEx had a duty to preserve the evidence, the court denied sanctions because the plaintiff could not show prejudice under Rule 37(e). The court found that the alleged substance of the missing communications was cumulative of other testimony already in the record, including evidence that the plaintiff had communicated plans and prepared his team before leaving under his accommodation.

The court also found no evidence that FedEx acted with intent to deprive the plaintiff of the ESI. A manager admitted deleting texts after learning of the EEOC charge, and the company could not locate the employee’s phone after it was shipped internally. Still, the record supported carelessness or weak preservation practices, not bad faith. The decision is a useful reminder that sloppy preservation alone does not justify an adverse inference. To obtain Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions, the moving party must still prove both actual prejudice and intent to deprive.

If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Nicole Gill, Chair, Managing Member CODISCOVR. With almost a decade of experience, she manages complex and high-profile eDiscovery projects and routinely navigates data and privacy protection laws across many domestic and foreign jurisdictions.