In Oakley v. MSG Networks, Inc. No. 17-cv-6903 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2025), US Circuit Judge Richard J. Sullivan, finding Plaintiff Charles Oakley’s “failure to take any steps whatsoever to preserve his text messages is ‘so stunningly derelict as to evince intentionality’”, granted an adverse-inference instruction against Oakley, and ordered Oakley to pay MSG’s attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the spoliation motion. However, he denied MSG’s requests for dismissal of the complaint, preclusion of Oakley’s core allegations, and monetary sanctions against Oakley’s counsel.
Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling
This case stemmed from an incident in February 2017 at Madison Square Garden (MSG) in which retired New York Knick Charles Oakley was forcibly removed from the stands at a New York Knicks basketball game.
During discovery on the assault and battery claims, it was revealed on July 10, 2024, that all text messages sent to or from Oakley’s phone prior to February 2022 had been destroyed. Oakley’s counsel disclosed this to MSG on August 22, 2024. Oakley admitted he “took no steps to preserve any potentially discoverable materials on his phone after his phone broke and he upgraded to a new device.” He did not image his phone, nor did he back up his phone to a cloud-based storage service. In Oakley’s “own words, ‘[i]t was more important to have a phone’ than it was to preserve the data saved on his device.”
Initial explanations from Oakley and his counsel regarding the loss were inconsistent. Initially, counsel stated Oakley upgraded his iPhone at a Verizon store in February 2022 and lost messages during the transfer. Later, Oakley testified he used an Android phone with AT&T, upgraded only when his phone broke (twice in eight years, in 2020 and 2024), and took no preservation steps. At a subsequent hearing, Oakley again shifted his testimony, stating he traded in his phone three times in eight years, including once in 2021, and admitted he did not instruct AT&T to preserve data or image/back up his phone, despite knowing he had a duty to preserve documents for litigation.
However, AT&T records, obtained via subpoena, definitively showed Oakley upgraded his phone seven times in the past eight years, significantly contradicting his sworn testimony. The AT&T records also contained metadata for text messages but not their content. Analysis of this metadata revealed that Oakley sent 1,113 and received 6,658 text messages in the three weeks following his removal (February 8 to March 1, 2017), averaging 39 sent and 202 received messages per day. This “increased over 250%” compared to pre-incident texting habits. Oakley himself eventually admitted he texted “a lot of people” about the incident, identifying at least thirteen individuals by name and acknowledging he couldn’t remember everyone. MSG established Oakley texted with 273 different phone numbers in the weeks following his removal.
Judge Sullivan found that Oakley’s duty to preserve relevant text messages arose no later than September 12, 2017, when he filed the lawsuit, and also found MSG “amply demonstrated that it was prejudiced by the loss of Oakley’s text messages because it is more than plausible that such text messages would have supported MSG’s defenses.” Judge Sullivan also found “no reason to think that Oakley would have complied” even if counsel had taken more steps, given his admitted knowledge of the preservation duty and subsequent destruction. Oakley’s conduct suggested the negligence of his counsel, “though troubling, did not cause the destruction of Oakley’s messages.” Oakley “should bear full responsibility for his spoliation.”
As a result, Judge Sullivan concluded that MSG “established by a preponderance of the evidence that Oakley acted with the intent to deprive MSG of his text messages in this litigation.” He stated that Oakley’s “significant failure to preserve his text messages” despite knowing his duty (from retainer agreements) and knowing data loss was likely during phone upgrades yet not taking “any steps whatsoever” to preserve data (e.g., imaging, cloud backup, AT&T instruction), was found to be “so stunningly derelict as to evince intentionality.” Oakley’s “repeated misrepresentations regarding his texting habits and phone trade-ins” further supported a finding of bad faith.
While denying MSG’s request for dismissal of Oakley’s complaint and also denying their request to preclude Oakley presenting evidence at trial that he was pushed to the ground or acted in self-defense, Judge Sullivan granted MSG’s request for an adverse-inference instruction at trial. Oakley was also ordered to pay MSG’s attorneys’ fees and costs for pursuing this spoliation motion and related discovery.
So, what do you think? Do you agree that Oakley’s actions were “stunningly derelict”? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.