Sayarad v. Butler-Lopez - Discovery Sanctions Granted for Electronic Evidence Spoliation

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re BLYTH ANDREA BUTLER-LOPEZ; PATRYCJA SAYARAD v. BLYTH ANDREA BUTLER-LOPEZ

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-03033

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT SS NE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA □□□□
Signed and Filed: February 13, 2026 □□□□□ ORL
2

4 Vine
5 DENNISMONTALL
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
6
7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
In re ) Bankruptcy Case No. 24-30431-DM
10 )
BLYTH ANDREA BUTLER-LOPEZ, ) Chapter 7
11 )
)
12
Debtor. )
13 )
)
14 ||PATRYCJA SAYARAD, ) Adversary Proceeding
15 } No. 24-03033-DM
Plaintiff, )
16 )
Vv. ) Hearing Held
17 ) Date: January 16, 2026
18 BLYTH ANDREA BUTLER-LOPEZ, ) Place: Courtroom 17, 16th Floor
) 450 Golden Gate Ave
19 Defendant. ) San Francisco, CA
) Or via Zoom
20
21 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’ S MOTIONS
22 FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AND RULE 11 SANCTIONS
23
24 ||I. INTRODUCTION.
25 On January 16, 2026, the court held a hearing on
||Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Re: Discovery (“Discovery
27 Motion”) (Dkt. 195) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions
2g ||Pursuant to Rule 11 (FRBP 9011; BLR 9011-1) and the Court’s
-l1-

1 Inherent Powers (“Rule 11 Motion”) (Dkt. 183) (together, the
2 Motions). The court took the matters under submission
3 thereafter. For the reasons set forth below, the court will
4 GRANT both Motions.
5
II. DISCUSSION.1
6 A. The Discovery Motion.
7 The Discovery Motion seeks terminating sanctions due to
8 Defendant’s spoliation of electronic evidence, and for
9 violations of court orders regarding discovery. The court is
10 satisfied that Defendant has acted impermissibly regarding her
11 duties surrounding electronic discovery, document discovery, and
12 compliance with court orders.
13 1. Defendant Intentionally Spoiled Electronic
14 Evidence.
15 Defendant has been a party to litigation that directly
16 implicates electronically stored information since June 2022
17 (Dkt. 1, referencing underlying state court case 22CV013251 in
18 Alameda County Superior Court). Defendant had a duty to
19 preserve electronically stored evidence in connection with that
20 litigation since at least that time. Victor Valley Union High
21 School Dist. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 5th 1121, 1140
22 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (duty to preserve evidence arises when
23 litigation can be reasonably anticipated). When Defendant filed
24 bankruptcy in June 2024, she remained under the duty to preserve
25 electronically stored information, even if the litigation had
26
27
1 The following discussion constitutes the court's findings of
28 fact and conclusions of law. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052(a).
1 been paused by the automatic stay. State court litigation
2 aside, since the time Plaintiff filed this Adversary Proceeding
3 in September 2024, Defendant was well-aware of this continued
4 (and new, under federal law) duty.
5 Despite this ongoing duty, at a hearing held on August 29,
6 2025, Defendant stated that she turned in her iPhone to her
7 phone carrier in November 2024, then assigned the phone number
8 that belonged to that iPhone to her minor son’s phone, and that
9 she has been sharing the phone with her son since that time.
10 Minutes later (after being reminded of her duty to preserve
11 evidence), Defendant testified that she turned in the phone
12 prior to the initiation of this Adversary Proceeding in
13 September 2024.
14 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted
15 Plaintiff’s request for further written discovery and for third-
16 party examination of the phone that Defendant shares with her
17 son. On September 5, 2025, the court signed an Amended Order
18 Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery
19 Responses (“Order”) (Dkt. 98). In addition to compelling written
20 discovery, the Order directed Defendant to “produce the phone
21 described by Defendant’s sworn testimony at the hearing and in
22 accordance with Plaintiff’s instructions and ESI discovery
23 protocol” no later than two weeks after Defendant was sent those
24 instructions.
25 After that hearing, Defendant filed four separate motions
26 to stay the issuance or effect of the court’s forthcoming Order,
27 prior discovery orders, or any subpoena. (Dkts. 86, 88, 111,
28 115).
1 The court held a hearing on these motions on September 26,
2 2025. At the hearing, the court also considered Plaintiff’s
3 Counter-Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 107), which
4 sought to enjoin Defendant from further filings that would delay
5 discovery or the progress of the adversary proceeding. The
6 court held that Defendant violated the court’s Order by failing
7 to produce the phone and issued a final Order to Produce Phone
8 (Dkt. 129). That Order to Produce Phone ordered Defendant to
9 produce the phone described in the court’s previous Order no
10 later than 5 p.m. on October 1, 2025.
11 The phone then produced by Defendant, which she claimed to
12 have been a phone that she and her son have used since either
13 November 2024, or prior to September 6, 2024 (when this
14 Adversary Proceeding was initiated), was a Samsung Galaxy S25+,
15 which is an Android phone that was not available for public
16 purchase until February 7, 2025. See Declaration of Thomas Howe
17 in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Re: Discovery,
18 Ex. 6 (Dkt. 195-2) (declaring under penalty of perjury and
19 providing documentation that Samsung introduced the Samsung
20 Galaxy S25 series on January 22, 2025, and made those products
21 (including the S25+) available for public purchase on February
22 7, 2025). The only data found on the phone were downloaded
23 images and text messages from September 27, 2025 through October
24 1, 2025.2

25
2 The court notes that Mr. Howe’s Declaration at Para. 21
26
contains what appears to be a minor error. That Declaration
27 states that the text messages on the phone were sent and
received between September 29-October 1, 2025, but the next
28 paragraph discusses text messages sent on September 27, 2025.
1 The court is satisfied that Defendant has refused to
2 produce or has otherwise spoiled electronic evidence which she
3 had a duty to preserve. Defendant has intentionally failed to
4 preserve electronic evidence, misled the court and the
5 Plaintiff, and caused months of delay through these efforts.
6 2. Defendant Violated Discovery Orders.
7
Defendant has failed to comply with multiple discovery
8
orders. On June 27, 2025, the court held its first hearing on
9
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (Dkt.
10
50). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the
11
parties to consensually resolve any remaining discovery disputes
12
on or before August 12, 2025. If issues were not resolved by
13
that point, Plaintiff was to file a status conference statement
14
detailing what issues remained, and the court would enter an
15
order on the Motion to Compel thereafter.
16
On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a further Statement of
17
Discovery Issues (Dkt. 74). In addition to the electronic
18 discovery problems discussed supra, the Statement noted that
19
Defendant still failed to produce certain documents and failed
20
to provide a signed verification of amended responses.
21
The court then issued an Order Regarding Motion to Compel
22
and Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 76) ordering Defendant, on
23
or before August 22, 2025: to deliver a signed verification of
24
25 All other paragraphs use a timeframe beginning with September
27, 2025. The court takes the Declaration as a whole and
26 concludes the earliest texts found on the phone were sent on
September 27, 2025, and further notes the two-day discrepancy is
27
not material. That the only data found on the phone was created
28 after Defendant was ordered on a final basis to produce the
phone is what is material to the court’s decision.
1 previous discovery responses; reproduce an illegible document in
2 a legible format; and produce documents that Plaintiff’s counsel
3 was unable to open or access when Defendant previously sent
4 those documents as purported email attachments.3
5 On August 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Declaration (Dkt. 80)
6 confirming that Defendant failed to comply with the Order
7 Regarding Motion to Compel and Motion for Protective Order. In
8 response to Defendant’s failure to comply with previous orders,
9 the court issued a further Order on Motion to Compel (Dkt. 82),
10 which set a further hearing on August 29, 2025 and ordered
11 Defendant to bring a physical signed verification of amended
12 discovery responses, and physical copies of documents
13 represented as email attachments in Exhibits A and C of
14 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Discovery Demands and New
15 Claims (Dkt. 75).
16 At the hearing, Defendant brought a signed verification but
17 failed to bring any legible documents as required.
18 Instead, Defendant claimed that the documents were on a
19 thumb drive. When the court questioned why she simply could not
20 produce the thumb drive that held the best copies of all
21 documents to be produced, she claimed that she did not bring the
22 thumb drive to court.
23 After the hearing, in the September 5, 2025 Order
24
(discussed supra regarding Defendant’s phone), the court ordered
25 Defendant to produce the thumb drive Defendant described at the

26
3 It appears to the court, from the exhibits submitted by
27
Plaintiff, that the purported attachments were never actually
28 file attachments, but merely .jpeg images made to look like a
regular email attachment.
1 hearing. Defendant never produced the thumb drive and later
2 claimed it was “warped/damaged and cannot be used.”
3 The court is satisfied that Defendant has repeatedly
4 impeded discovery, impaired Plaintiff’s pretrial efforts, misled
5 the court and the Plaintiff, and caused months of needless delay
6 and expense through these actions.
7 3. Terminating Sanctions are Appropriate.
8
Civil Rule 37(e)(2)4 , incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P.
9
7037, provides for remedies if a court determines that a
10
Defendant has intentionally destroyed electronic evidence that
11
should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation, and it
12
cannot be retrieved by other means. Those remedies include
13
presuming the lost information was unfavorable to the party, or
14
dismissing the action and entering a default judgment. Civil
15
Rule 37(2)(2)(A) and (C). Likewise, Civil Rule 37(b)(2)(A)
16
provides for the remedies similar to Civil Rule 37(e) if a party
17
fails to comply with a court’s discovery orders, including
18
striking pleadings in whole or part if the court deems such
19
remedy appropriate.
20
Courts also "have inherent power to dismiss an action when
21
a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct
22
utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of
23 justice." Anheuser-Busch v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d
24 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus.,
25 Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) Prior to imposing
26
terminating sanctions such as default, a “court must weigh
27
28 4 Unless specified otherwise, all “Civil Rule” references are to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1 several factors (1) the public's interest in expeditious
2 resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its
3 dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking
4 sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases
5 on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
6
sanctions.” Anheuser-Busch v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69
7
F.3d at 348; Adriana Intl. Corp. v. Lewis & Co., 923 F.2d 1406,
8 1412 (9th Cir. 1990).
9 As described in some detail above, Defendant has spent
10 months refusing to produce evidence, spoiling evidence, and
11 openly refusing to comply with multiple discovery orders. The
12 court has considered the necessary factors, and four of those
13 factors weigh heavily in favor of entry of a default against the
14 Defendant.
15 “Where a court order is violated, the first two factors
16 support sanctions” and the fourth factor favoring decisions on
17
the merits generally cuts against entering a default. Adriana
18
Intl. Corp. v. Lewis & Co., 923 F.2d at 1412. “Therefore, it is
19
the third and fifth factors that are decisive.” Id.
20 As to the third factor, “[f]ailure to produce documents as
21 ordered . . . is considered sufficient prejudice” to the party
22
seeking sanctions. Id. That is clearly the case here, Plaintiff
23 has been repeatedly frustrated by Defendant’s action and the
24 third factor is satisfied.
25 As to the fifth factor, a court must consider three more
26 factors prior to imposing terminating sanctions: (1) whether
27 less drastic sanctions are feasible; (2) whether alternative
28 sanctions were implemented prior to ordering terminating
1 sanctions; and (3) whether the court warned the party of the
2 possibility of terminating sanctions before actually doing so.
3
Id. at 1412-13.
4 Here, less drastic sanctions, such as assuming that any
5 lost evidence was unfavorable to Defendant while allowing a full
6 trial to proceed, are not feasible. This is a proceeding in
7 which the onus is solely on the Plaintiff to prove all elements
8 of willful and malicious injury pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
9 523(a)(6).5 Without knowing what electronic evidence would have
10 been presented, the court cannot simply presume the lost
11 evidence was indeed defamatory. In this instance, striking
12 Defendant’s answer and allowing Plaintiff to seek a default
13 judgment is the less drastic measure, in that Plaintiff still
14 must prove her case to obtain the default judgment.
15 Alternative sanctions were not implemented prior to
16 ordering terminating sanctions. Instead, the record shows the
17 court gave Defendant many chances to comply with court orders,
18 to no avail. The court has informed Defendant during hearings
19 that it has the authority to order appropriate sanctions and
20 take other actions to ensure compliance with discovery orders,
21 which Defendant has acknowledged. In this instance, the court is
22 satisfied that striking Defendant’s answer is an appropriate
23 response to repeated and egregious violations of the discovery
24 process and the court’s orders.
25

26
5 Plaintiff did not challenge Defendant’s right to a discharge,
27
which was granted on September 10, 2024. Plaintiff’s only source
28 of recovery, if at all, will be a favorable ruling in this
nondischargeability action.
4. Reasonable Expenses are Warranted.
1
2 Pursuant to Civil Rule 37(a)(5)(A), if the court issues an
3 order compelling discovery compliance, the court must also order
4 the payment of reasonable expenses to the party forced to seek
5 such an order, unless “(i) the movant filed the motion before
6 attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery
7 without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure,
8 response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii)
9 other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
10 Here, none of the exceptions to mandatory expenses apply.
11 Plaintiff has demonstrated that she repeatedly attempted to work
12 with Defendant to obtain necessary discovery responses prior to
13 resorting to court intervention. There was no justification for
14 Defendant’s repeated defiance of court orders, especially after
15 multiple hearings during which the Defendant agreed to provide
16 requested materials. There are no other circumstances which
17 make an award of expenses unjust, though the court warns
18 Plaintiff that Defendant’s financial status is unlikely to
19 change, and chances of being paid on this award may be slim.
20 Nonetheless, an award of reasonable expenses is mandated by
21 Civil Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Pursuant to Civil L.R. 37-4(b)(3)
22 (incorporated into the Bankruptcy Local Rules by B.L.R. 1001-
23 2(a)), counsel for Plaintiff shall file an application for
24 attorney’s fees that itemizes with particularity the otherwise
25 unnecessary expenses, including attorney fees, directly caused
26 by Defendant’s violation of Rule 37, and set forth an
27 appropriate justification for any attorney-fee hourly rate
28 claimed.
B. The Rule 11 Motion.
1
2 Rule 11, incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011, requires
3 that any signed document filed with the court be accurate and
4 not filed for an improper purpose. Pursuant to Rule 11(b), by
5 presenting any filing such as a motion to the court, the filer
6 (including an unrepresented party) certifies that there is a
7 genuine purpose for the filing; the claims or defenses are based
8 in law; and any factual assertions or denials are warranted
9 based on evidence or reasonable belief.
10 The Rule 11 Motion seeks sanctions for Defendant’s failure
11 to withdraw or correct the Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”)
12 (Dkt. 120). Plaintiff requests those sanctions be imposed in
13 the form of reasonable attorney fees to be paid to Plaintiff’s
14 attorney, and an additional penalty payable to the court.
15 The MSJ violated Rule 11(b). At the hearing on the MSJ,
16 the court made clear that the MSJ would be denied because the
17 facts set forth were internally contradictory, and illustrated
18 that many disputed material issues of fact remained unresolved.
19 The court further noted that the MSJ was actually another motion
20 for a protective order (despite the court’s previous denials of
21 such requests) and consisted of arguments that had nothing to do
22 with the Complaint and that “The defendant has to prove the
23 facts. . . and you didn’t, you didn’t at all.” (Dkt. 178, audio
24 from October 24, 2025 hearing from 00:13:43 to 00:14:03 and
25 00:22:18 to 00:22:26). Defendant’s MSJ was frivolous, dilatory,
26 not based in the law or undisputed fact, and was not withdrawn
27 despite a safe harbor warning from the Plaintiff.
28
1 Plaintiff properly complied with the safe harbor and other
2 notice provisions of Rule 11(c)(1) and (2). Sanctions are
3 appropriate here. The court imposes a penalty of $1000 payable
4 to the court pursuant to Rule 11(c)(4)(A)(ii), and awards
5 Plaintiff reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
6 incurred for the Rule 11 Motion pursuant to Rule 11(c)(2)(C).
7 Counsel for Plaintiff should file and serve an application
8 regarding the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred
9 for the Rule 11 Motion.
10 III. CONCLUSION.
11 For the reasons set forth above, the court will grant the
12 Motions. The court is issuing concurrent Orders that grant each
13 Motion; strike Defendant’s answer and enter her default, vacate
14 the trial currently scheduled for April 20, 2026 and replace the
15 trial with a one-day prove up hearing; award reasonable
16 attorney’s fees for each Motion, and impose a penalty on
17 Defendant of $1,000 payable to the court.
18
19 ** END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION **
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COURT SERVICE LIST
1
Blyth Andrea Butler-Lopez
2
PO Box 320113
3 San Francisco, CA 94132
bblopez805@gmail.com
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28