Wenting Rohwer v. Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 27, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01284
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 WENTING ROHWER, 8 CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01284-RSL 9 Plaintiff, v. 10 ORDER DISMISSING SEPARATE WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC., et SPOLIATION CLAIM 11 al., 12 Defendants. 13

15 This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion for Partial 16 Reconsideration of the Court’s February 19, 2026, Order re Defendants’ Motion to 17 Dismiss.” Dkt. 112. Defendants point out that the Court erred by overlooking and not 18 considering their arguments regarding the legal insufficiency of plaintiff’s spoliation 19 claim. The Court renoted the motion for reconsideration and requested further briefing 20 from the parties. Having considered their submissions, the Court finds as follows: 21 Neither Washington nor federal law recognizes spoliation as an independent cause 22 of action, at least not when the alleged spoliator is a party to the action. See, e.g., J.K. by 23 Wolf v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 20 Wn. App. 2d 291, 308 (2021) (“No general duty to 24 preserve evidence exists in Washington, but the duty can arise from other sources.”); 25 Mason Sales, LLC, v. Talent Creation, Ltd., No. 3:24-cv-00092, 2026 WL 753176, at *7 26 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 17, 2026); Johnson v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-2056-LCB, 1 2023 WL 7106467, at *5 (N.D. Ala. July 26, 2023); North v. Smarsh, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 2 63, 79 (D.D.C. 2015); R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 657 F. Supp. 2d 878, 887 3 (N.D. Ohio 2009). While federal courts generally impose a duty on litigants to preserve 4 evidence when they have notice that the materials are potentially relevant to pending or 5 reasonably foreseeable litigation, spoliation has historically been treated as an evidentiary 6 matter to be resolved through recourse to the court’s inherent power to control litigation 7 and protect the integrity of the judicial process and/or the rules governing discovery. See, 8 e.g., Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); MS Amlin Marine NV v. 9 Delta Marine Indus. Inc., 348 F.R.D. 658, 680 (W.D. Wash. 2025). Thus, if plaintiff can 10 show that (1) defendants had an obligation to preserve the evidence when it was destroyed 11 or altered, (2) the destruction or loss was willful or culpable, and (3) the evidence was 12 relevant to the claims or defenses plaintiff has put forth in this litigation, she may file a 13 motion for spoliation sanctions. Surowiec v. Cap. Title Agency, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 997, 14 1005 (D. Ariz. 2011); Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 509 (D. Md. 15 2009); In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1070–78 (N.D. Cal. 16 2006); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). She may 17 not, however, pursue a separate, independent cause of action for spoliation in this context. 18

19 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is 20 GRANTED and plaintiff’s spoliation claim (Count X) is DISMISSED. 21

22 DATED this 27th day of March, 2026. 23

24 25 Robert S. Lasnik 26 United States District Judge