This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
Welcome to Reed Smith's viewpoints — timely commentary from our lawyers on topics relevant to your business and wider industry. Browse to see the latest news and subscribe to receive updates on topics that matter to you, directly to your mailbox.
| 2 minutes read

Fraudulent Text Messages Lead to Dismissal with Prejudice

In Gunter v. Alutiiq Advanced Sec. Sols., LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03410-JRR (D. Md. March 2, 2023), the District Court of Maryland dismissed Plaintiff’s wrongful termination action on the merits with prejudice after finding clear and convincing evidence presented by a forensic expert that Plaintiff committed spoliation of evidence and fraud. The expert opined that after the action was filed, Plaintiff deleted certain text messages, and that other text messages produced in support of his claims were “altered” and “not genuine.” At his deposition, Plaintiff admitted he deleted text messages responsive to Defendant's Rule 34 requests, but claimed that he didn't think they were relevant. In response, the court ordered Plaintiff to turn his cell phone over to the forensic expert. The implausibility of the text messages was the subject of motions prior to Plaintiff’s deposition, resulting in an order precluding Plaintiff from entering the fraudulent text messages into evidence and permitting Defendant to use such evidence to impeach Plaintiff’s credibility at trial. But as the case progressed, dismissal on the merits with prejudice was deemed the appropriate remedy by the court. A few days after the deposition, Plaintiff's counsel moved to withdraw from the case, which was granted, and Plaintiff proceeded pro se.

Dismissal with prejudice was deemed the appropriate remedy by the court based upon its consideration of Rules 26, 37, and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the inherent authority vested with the court to sanction a party for wrongful conduct.  After finding Plaintiff was afforded due process, the court considered the following factors: (a) Prejudice to the Judicial Process, the Administration of Justice and the Defendant; (b) Bad Faith and Personal Responsibility/Culpability; (c) Need for Deterrence; (d) Effectiveness of Less Drastic Sanction, Policy of Trying Cases on the Merits, and Public Interest. The court noted that Plaintiff “demonstrated that he lacks contrition or anything of the sort; instead, he continues to assert he lacks responsibility or fault for his misdeeds, and blames others. Further, [Plaintiff]...demonstrated that he ‘doubles down’ instead of correcting his behavior when confronted or exposed. These observations of the court weigh heavily in the court's final decision-making as to the appropriate sanction.”

In addition, Plaintiff was ordered to pay Defendant $10,000.00 of the $13,577.38 expended by Defendant for engagement of the forensic expert, based on Plaintiff’s ability to pay pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This case underlines two important lessons. First, parties and their counsel should always make a good-faith effort to preserve any relevant electronically stored information, including text messages. Second, if parties and their counsel come across a mistake, they should take responsibility for such mistakes immediately, rather than “doubling down” or blaming others.

In view of the court's analysis of the particular facts of this case as well as all policy considerations and factors set forth above, the court finds that dismissal of this action with prejudice is the appropriate sanction, and that no less drastic sanction is adequate or appropriate.


ediscovery, dismissal, prejudice, rule 26, rule 37, rule 41, rule 34, altered, false, evidence, e-discovery