CT Install America, LLC v. Boryszewski, No. 22-cv-4557 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 2026), full opinion (PDF)
When a party swears it has produced everything, the real dispute often moves to the places it never searched, such as personal phones, repurposed workstations, and the custodians who have left the company. On July 8, 2026, Magistrate Judge Sitarski of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania confronted all three and ordered the withheld electronically stored information (ESI) produced. Her opinion pushes production duties squarely onto personal devices and the files of departed employees, then declines to end the case through sanctions even with nearly every factor pointing that way.
What happened
CT Install America sued former workers and their new company over the alleged theft of customer data and trade secrets. The plaintiff first served discovery requests in December 2022. Over the next three years it moved to compel four times, and the court twice ordered the defendants to produce all of the requested discovery. The defendants turned over several thousand pages but withheld much of their ESI, objected to most of the interrogatories, and eventually sought a protective order barring any further requests for their ESI. After the court denied that motion, the plaintiff moved for sanctions in March 2026.
The court's analysis
The court held that messages among the individual defendants are discoverable even when exchanged on personal rather than company devices, ordering production of every such message "even if the message was sent or received on a 'personal' device." It applied the same principle to custodians who had left the company, rejecting the idea that departure ends a discovery obligation and ordering the departed employee's cell phone backup and other withheld ESI produced. The court warned that a failure to comply without a reasonable explanation "will be viewed as willful noncompliance."
The court saved its sharpest concern for preservation. After being ordered to produce all discovery, the defendants had repurposed several company workstations, leaving them to "shoulder the primary blame for this potential spoliation." The interrogatory practice drew a similar response, because pointing the plaintiff to a mass production without identifying the responsive documents does not satisfy Rule 33(d).
The plaintiff asked for adverse inferences that would have established the conspiracy and misappropriation at the heart of its claims. The court acknowledged that a mechanical tally of the Third Circuit's six-factor test for case-dispositive sanctions would support granting them and effectively ending the case without a decision on the merits. It rejected that path in a single line: "But that is not the calculus." Because lesser measures could still move the defendants toward compliance, the court ordered a final round of production, awarded the plaintiff its fees for the motion, and left the door open to narrowly tailored adverse inferences tied to specific acts of destruction once the record is clear.
Why it matters
The reach of the production order is the practical lesson. A custodian's personal phone holds discoverable ESI, and an employee who walks out the door carries the duty to preserve along with them. Counsel who assume otherwise, or who let a client reformat devices after a preservation duty has attached, are building a spoliation record for the other side.
The sanctions half is a reminder that a strong factor tally does not guarantee a case-ending inference. Courts in the Third Circuit still prefer merits resolutions and will hold severe relief back while giving one more chance to comply. For the party seeking sanctions, the path the court endorsed here matters. A narrow, well-documented request tied to a specific act of destruction stands a better chance than a sweeping demand that would decide the case on its own.
Counsel should treat personal devices and the data of departed custodians as within reach, preserve early, and keep any sanctions request narrow enough that a court can grant it without ending the case.
The full opinion is available as a PDF.
