# WP Engine Accuses Automattic of Destroying Evidence > [!question] Lingering Questions > - Who is Jonathan Robins and what custodial role does his declaration establish? > - Base rate check: how often do federal courts actually grant adverse-inference instructions for ephemeral-messaging spoliation claims? > - Does The WPOCC have a written litigation-hold or records-retention policy? If not, is this the prompt to draft one? > [!tip] Article Ideas > - A one-page litigation-hold and records-retention template naming ephemeral-messaging apps, aimed at open source foundations and community orgs. > [!link] Cross Reference > - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Open Source Governance MOC]] > [!quote] Vocabulary > - **Spoliation** — the destruction or failure to preserve evidence relevant to litigation, which can trigger sanctions including adverse-inference jury instructions. ## Bib capsule Reporting on a filing in the ongoing WP Engine v. Automattic litigation: WP Engine alleges Automattic destroyed messages relevant to Matt Mullenweg's motive and asks the court both for spoliation sanctions and dismissal of Automattic's trademark counterclaims. ## Author's thesis WP Engine's motion asks the court to treat the loss of ephemeral-channel messages as evidence of what those messages would have shown — a legally aggressive but procedurally standard move — while a magistrate judge has already signaled skepticism of Automattic's explanation without yet ruling on spoliation itself. ## Key arguments (≤3) 1. **The lost record is characterized as the central evidence of motive.** WP Engine frames the destroyed messages as the "direct record" of Mullenweg's "real motive." 2. **The requested relief is concrete, not vague.** WP Engine wants a jury instruction presuming the destroyed messages supported its interference, defamation, and CFAA claims — plus preclusion and dismissal of counterclaims. 3. **A prior judicial order already registered concern**, without finding spoliation: Magistrate Judge Ajay Krishnan called the allegations "concerning" and Automattic's response "unsatisfying." ## Claim atoms ### Lost messages become the case's central evidence > [!quote] ID:rw_01kyq6k12fxdamq6nj5j36ny32 > WP Engine alleges the destroyed messages are the "direct record" of Mullenweg's "real motive" The sanctions theory turns on motive being unprovable by other means — when the record of intent is gone, the party who held it loses the ability to be believed about intent. ### Spoliation motions seek instruction, preclusion, and dismissal > [!quote] ID:rw_01kyq6kbaj7yh1bc8d484bq3tv > WP Engine wants the jury instructed to presume the destroyed messages contained evidence supporting its interference, defamation, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims. A concrete template for what spoliation relief actually looks like — useful reference whenever "sanctions" appears in ecosystem reporting without specifics. ### Judicial language precedes judicial findings > [!quote] ID:rw_01kyq6kwghth5zhe7y72hbvp1x > describing WP Engine's spoliation allegations as "concerning" and Automattic's response as "unsatisfying." Guards against the most common misreading of this story: a magistrate compelling further explanation is not a court finding spoliation. ### Denial by re-description substitutes an easier charge > [!quote] ID:rw_01kyq6m4bf95v2908s5n3af5nn > "WP Engine's case has collapsed. Knowing they can't win on the merits, they've filed a motion based on mischaracterizations" Automattic's spokesperson statement responds to a preservation-of-evidence question with a motive attack, not engagement on the preservation facts. ## Permanent candidates - **Governance decisions made in ephemeral channels are unauditable by construction** — promoted below; strongest cross-domain claim, applies to any project or org using disappearing-message tools for decision-relevant communication. ## Processing checklist - [x] Ported from existing deep-read (Refactor Appendix) - [x] Checked for duplicate Permanent notes — none found - [x] Connected into MOC — [[3. Resources/MOCs/Open Source Governance MOC]] - [ ] Diarise the October 1, 2026 spoliation hearing and set a review note ## Metadata - Source: [[3. Resources/Literature Notes/WP Engine Accuses Automattic of Destroying Evidence]] ## Links - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Open Source Governance MOC]] — records-retention and governance-auditability are core governance infrastructure questions, not just litigation trivia