When Evidence Auto-Deletes: Winning and Defending Sanctions for Lost Texts and Chats

Anna Mercado Clark
Anna Mercado Clark
Phillips Lytle LLP

Anna Mercado Clark leads Phillips Lytle's Data Privacy and Cybersecurity and e-Discovery practices, co-leads its Cryptocurrency and Blockchain team, and serves on the firm's Governing Committee as Partner and Chief Information Security Officer. Her practice spans data privacy and cybersecurity, e-discovery, business litigation, white collar defense and government investigations, intellectual property, and international business law.

Jeff Martin
Jeff Martin
Evidence Solutions

Jeff Martin is a certified Digital Forensics Expert with over 20 years of experience and a Digital Evidence Expert Witness at Evidence Solutions, Inc. He specializes in cell phone forensics, computer forensics, cybersecurity, EMR/EHR forensics, and audio/video/imagery forensics, and has conducted hundreds of digital forensics investigations involving the acquisition, preservation, and analysis of data in state and federal courts.

Live Video-Broadcast: September 22, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

Your Opponent's Texts Are Deleting Themselves — and So Are Your Client's

Custodians now do business on Signal, WhatsApp, Slack, and auto-deleting SMS — platforms built to erase their own records. Courts applying Rule 37(e) no longer treat auto-deletion as a technical accident. DOJ, FTC, SEC, and EC enforcement actions are reshaping hold obligations from the moment the duty to preserve attaches.

The consequences are already on the books. Leave auto-delete running after a hold, and the timing itself becomes circumstantial evidence of intent to deprive. Miss Rule 37(e)'s reasonable steps, and exposure climbs from curative measures to adverse inference instructions. Epic v. Google, FTC v. Amazon, and Safelite v. Lockridge show how compliance failures become sanctions records. A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on hold practices can dismantle a defense built after the fact.

You walk out with work product, not theory. Take home a motion-building checklist grounded in the most significant 2024–2025 decisions. Apply a working framework for designing, issuing, and documenting holds that withstand sanctions scrutiny in federal court. That practitioner judgment is what no automated summary can supply.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Two-Tier Sanctions Framework
    How Rule 37(e)'s two tiers and two standards determine whether curative measures or adverse inference instructions are on the table.
  • Proving Intent to Deprive
    How circumstantial evidence and the timing paradigm separate negligent deletion from the intent finding that unlocks severe sanctions.
  • Building the Evidentiary Record
    How forensics, gap analysis, and hold deficiencies combine into the forensic, documentary, and deposition-based record a winning motion requires.
  • The Enforcement Landscape
    How DOJ, FTC, SEC, and EC actions are reshaping litigation hold obligations before a complaint is ever filed.
  • Designing Defensible Holds
    What courts actually require under Rule 37(e) for messaging platforms — platform-specific instructions, administrator-level auto-delete suspension, and compliance monitoring.
  • Privacy-Hold Conflicts
    How to manage GDPR and CCPA conflicts with a U.S. litigation hold obligation without falling into the post-hoc defense problem.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 22, 2026

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Anna Mercado Clark, Partner and Chief Information Security Officer | Phillips Lytle LLP

Anna Mercado Clark leads Phillips Lytle’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity and e-Discovery practices, co-leads its Cryptocurrency and Blockchain team, and serves on the firm’s Governing Committee as Partner and Chief Information Security Officer. Her practice spans data privacy and cybersecurity, e-discovery, business litigation, white collar defense and government investigations, intellectual property, and international business law.

  • Education & Credentials

Ms. Mercado Clark earned her J.D. from Fordham University School of Law in 2005 and her B.A. from Rutgers University in 2002. She is admitted in New York and New Jersey, before the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey, and before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Eleventh Circuits. She holds the CIPP/E, CIPP/US, and CIPM certifications and is a Fellow of Information Privacy (FIP).

  • Recognition & Leadership

Her work has been recognized in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business (2026) and by The Legal 500 US, which ranked her Tier 1 in Cybersecurity, City Elite – New York (2026). She was named among the Corporate Counsel Business Journal’s 50 Women to Watch (2026), was selected to New York Metro Super Lawyers from 2021 through 2025 and became an International Association of Privacy Professionals Information Privacy Fellow in 2021.

  • Professional Involvement

She is a past president of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association and a founding member of the Filipino American Lawyers Association of New York. She serves on Law360’s Cybersecurity & Privacy Editorial Advisory Board (2022–2026), participates in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), including its GDPR project, and is active in the American Bar Association’s Business Law and Science & Technology Law Sections and as a Special Advisor to its Commission on Women in the Profession. She has also served on the Steering Committee of the Collaborative Bar Leadership Academy, including as its Vice Chair in 2023.

  • Experience

A former Assistant District Attorney, Ms. Mercado Clark also teaches as an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law, where her courses include Fundamental Lawyering Skills and Privacy and Security. She writes and speaks frequently on cybersecurity, privacy, artificial intelligence, and litigation topics.

 

Jeff Martin, Senior Digital Forensics Analyst and Expert Witness | Evidence Solutions

Jeff Martin is a certified Digital Forensics Expert with over 20 years of experience and a Digital Evidence Expert Witness at Evidence Solutions, Inc. He specializes in cell phone forensics, computer forensics, cybersecurity, EMR/EHR forensics, and audio/video/imagery forensics, and has conducted hundreds of digital forensics investigations involving the acquisition, preservation, and analysis of data in state and federal courts. Before joining Evidence Solutions, he served as an Advanced Digital Forensic Analyst with the Michigan State Police Computer Crimes Unit and earlier spent a decade as Chief Information & Security Officer in the financial industry. He is a licensed private investigator in Arizona, Texas, and Michigan.

  • Education & Credentials

Martin holds a B.S. in Computer Information Systems from Northern Michigan University and an M.S. in Cyber Security & Information Assurance from Davenport University. His certifications include Certified Forensic Computer Examiner (CFCE), Cellebrite Certified Logical Operator, Cellebrite Certified Physical Analyst, Magnet Certified Forensic Examiner, X-Ways and Advanced X-Ways training, and Hawk Analytics cellular technology, mapping, and analysis training.

  • Recognition & Leadership

He maintained a 100% conviction rate across his caseload with the Michigan State Police, and received an award for analyzing vehicle GPS data, cell tower triangulation, and cellphone records to locate a homicide victim buried in a remote forest.

  • Professional Involvement

Martin is a faculty instructor at Northern Michigan University and Davenport University and an adjunct instructor teaching Cybercrime & Digital Forensics and the Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI) certification course, as well as digital forensics search and seizure at the police academy. He serves as a certification coach for the CFCE credential through IACIS, has trained a dedicated group of judges, magistrates, and attorneys in digital evidence, and is a member of Michigan InfraGard, the Northern Michigan University Cyber Security Advisory Council, and IACIS.

  • Experience

His forensic caseload spans over 550 drive imaging examinations, over 700 cellular phone analyses, and over 500 external media devices. He has qualified as an expert in digital forensics examinations in numerous jurisdictions across the United States and in the Cayman Islands. Earlier in his career he served from 1995 to 2007 in the United States Army and Michigan Army National Guard as a military police, protective services, and military intelligence officer.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Building the Sanctions Motion When Messages Auto-Delete | 12:00pm – 1:00pm

This session walks attorneys through the evidentiary and procedural framework for building a winning spoliation sanctions motion when opposing parties have lost or destroyed text messages, chats, or other ephemeral communications through auto-delete functions. Attendees will learn the two-tier Rule 37(e) structure, how courts distinguish negligent deletion from intent to deprive, and the specific evidentiary record—forensic, documentary, and deposition-based—needed to support sanctions ranging from curative measures to adverse inference instructions. Attorneys leave with a practical motion-building checklist grounded in the most significant 2024–2025 decisions.

BREAK | 1:00pm – 1:10pm

SESSION 2 – Litigation Holds and Preservation Defense for Messaging Platforms | 1:10pm – 2:10pm

This session examines how to build and defend a legally sufficient litigation hold when custodians communicate on ephemeral and auto-deleting messaging platforms. Attorneys will learn what courts now require under Rule 37(e) including platform-specific instructions, administrator-level auto-delete suspension, and compliance monitoring — and will analyze the compliance failures in Epic v. Google, FTC v. Amazon, and Safelite v. Lockridge. Attendees leave with a working framework for designing, issuing, and documenting holds that withstand sanctions scrutiny in federal court.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
Derivatives, Digital Assets, and AI in Financial Markets
Derivatives, Digital Assets, and AI in Financial Markets Fri, September 11, 2026
Live Webcast