Sekisui Am. Corp. v. Hart, 2013 WL 4116322 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2013). In this case, Judge Shira Scheindlin reversed an earlier order that denied spoliation sanctions for the plaintiffs’ deletion of ESI. The underlying breach of contract claim arose from the plaintiffs’ acquisition of the defendants’ company, and the spoliation that occurred between an October 2010 notice of a potential claim sent to the defendants and the actual filing of the complaint in May 2012. In that time period, the plaintiffs ordered their IT vendor to delete the emails of one of the defendants, who was the acting chief executive of the defendants’ company, and another former employee. Additionally, the plaintiffs did not put a litigation hold in place until November 2012—approximately fifteen months after sending the original notice—and they did not notify the IT vendor managing the plaintiffs’ ESI of the duty to preserve until three months after the claims was actually filed. In a June 2013 opinion, Magistrate Judge Frank Maas denied the defendants’ motion for sanctions because the defendants did not show they had been prejudiced by the negligent destruction of the emails. The court diverged from the June 2013 opinion, noting that an adverse inference instruction is warranted when the moving party establishes that the destroying party had control and a duty to preserve, and was culpable in destroying relevant evidence. The court found the control element undisputed and turned to the culpability requirement, where it found that the requisite culpability is established when the destruction was done knowingly or even negligently. Notably, the court found the plaintiffs’ arguments that they deleted the emails for the good faith purpose to save server space unpersuasive because the plaintiffs’ employees directly requested the deletion of ESI and was negligent in placing the late litigation hold. Finally, turning to the relevance prong, the court concluded the emails were presumably relevant and ultimately concluded that the willful destruction of potentially relevant information was enough to presume prejudice to the moving party. As such, the court reversed Judge Maas’ June 2013 ruling and ordered an adverse inference and monetary sanction against the plaintiffs.