Carroll v. Trump

Background

E. Jean Carroll sued Donald J. Trump over statements he made in June 2019 after Carroll publicly accused him of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s. The court had previously decided liability on a motion for partial summary judgment, and the January 2024 trial concerned damages only. The jury returned a verdict for Carroll totaling $83.3 million.

During the damages trial, Carroll testified about deleting some threatening emails or social-media replies. The opinion says her testimony was confusing about what she deleted, when she deleted it, and whether she was referring to emails or social-media messages. She had also testified about the deletions in a deposition in January 2023 and in testimony during a prior related proceeding.

Trump’s Requests

Trump’s attorney orally moved for a mistrial during Carroll’s cross-examination, arguing that Carroll had admitted deleting evidence related to her damages claim. Judge Kaplan immediately denied that request and instructed the jury to disregard defense counsel’s remarks about the motion.

Trump later filed a letter motion again seeking a mistrial. Alternatively, he asked the court to strike some of Carroll’s testimony, prevent an award of damages connected to death threats, or give the jury an adverse-inference instruction. An adverse inference instruction would allow or require the jury to assume that lost evidence was unfavorable to the party that lost it. The court treated the renewed mistrial request as an attempt to have the earlier ruling reconsidered.

Reasons for the Rulings

Judge Kaplan declined to reconsider the earlier denial because Trump identified no change in controlling law, new evidence, overlooked authority, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court also said that granting a mistrial after the jury had already returned its verdict would serve no useful purpose. A new trial would not resolve whether Carroll should face consequences for deleting electronic information.

The court separately analyzed Trump’s requested sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which governs the loss of electronically stored information that should have been preserved for litigation. The court explained that Trump had to establish the required elements before receiving relief, including that Carroll failed to preserve information that should have been preserved, that the information could not be restored or replaced, and that Trump was prejudiced by its loss.

The court found that Carroll’s duty to preserve evidence arose, at the earliest, in mid-July 2019, when she first anticipated suing Trump. Her deletion of threatening messages shortly after her accusation became public on June 21, 2019 therefore occurred before that duty arose. The court assumed, without finding, that Carroll may have deleted some electronic information after litigation was anticipated, but found that assumption insufficient to justify sanctions.

Trump also failed to show that the deleted information could not be recovered or replaced. His lawyers had known about the deletions since at least January 2023, but Trump offered no evidence that he had tried to recover the messages through discovery or otherwise. The court further found that Trump failed to prove prejudice—that the lost messages would actually have supported his defense rather than merely possibly helping it. The court also found no evidence that Carroll acted with the intent to deprive Trump of evidence, as required for the more serious sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2).

The court declined to impose sanctions under Rule 37(b), which can apply when a party fails to obey a discovery order. Trump had not expressly requested relief under that rule and provided no evidence showing what subpoena or discovery order existed, what it required, or when it was served. The court also found the request untimely because Trump waited nearly a year after learning about the deletions before raising the issue during trial.

Disposition

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Trump’s oral motion and letter motion as lacking merit. The court also denied, by not granting, the alternative requests to strike Carroll’s testimony, limit damages, or give an adverse-inference instruction. The jury had already heard cross-examination and closing arguments about the deleted messages, and the court had instructed the jury about how it could consider that evidence.