News · Fact Check
Did the court order phones and devices preserved in Harpole v. Owens?
No. On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied the plaintiff's motion for a preservation order, explaining that the ordinary legal duty to preserve evidence already applies without a special order.
By Americans for Transparency · Published
The short answer
No. On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied Brian Harpole's motion for an order requiring the defendants to preserve phones and devices. The judge wrote that the general duty to preserve evidence already applies once litigation is reasonably anticipated, and that the issue could be raised at the case management conference. An earlier AFNPT page wrongly said the motion had never been decided; that has been corrected.
- The plaintiff moved for an order to preserve phones and devices.
- On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied that motion (Doc. 26).
- The judge said the ordinary duty to preserve evidence already applies without a special order.
- AFNPT corrected an earlier statement that the motion had not been decided.
The claim, and what the record shows
Claim 1 · Online commentary about the case
The court in Harpole v. Owens ordered the defendants to preserve their phones and electronic devices.
Not supportedThe court did not issue such an order. On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied the plaintiff's motion for a preservation order, writing that the general duty to preserve evidence already applies once litigation is anticipated and that the matter could be raised at the case management conference.[1][2]
What was asked, and what was decided
Brian Harpole asked the court for an order directing the defendants to preserve phones and electronic devices. On July 6, 2026, a magistrate judge denied that motion. The ruling is Doc. 26 on the public docket.[1][2]
The judge's reason was that a special order was not needed: the general legal duty to preserve relevant evidence already attaches once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, and the preservation question could be taken up at the case management conference.[1]
What denial does and does not mean
Denying the motion does not mean the defendants are free to destroy anything. The ordinary duty to preserve still applies. It means only that the court declined to issue a separate, formal preservation order at that stage. No finding about the facts of the case was made.[1]
The correction
An earlier AFNPT review page stated that this motion had never been decided. That was wrong: it was denied on July 6, 2026. AFNPT corrected the page and logged the change. The corrections log is here.[3]
Questions people ask
Does the denial let the defendants delete evidence?
No. The duty to preserve relevant evidence applies by law once litigation is anticipated. The court simply declined to issue a separate order on top of that duty at this stage.
Who decided the motion?
A magistrate judge of the Middle District of Tennessee, in an order dated July 6, 2026 (Doc. 26), two days before the full-district recusal.
Sources
- [1]U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., Order denying motion for preservation order, Doc. 26, July 6, 2026. Primary record
- [2]CourtListener / RECAP, Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet, October 12, 2026. Primary record
- [3]Americans for Transparency, Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record, October 7, 2026. AFNPT review