Which circles back to my original question, “assuming there was a preponderance of evidence, why would someone only destroy a fraction of it knowing that doing

Which circles back to my original question, “assuming there was a preponderance of evidence, why would someone only destroy a fraction of it knowing that doing so would be irrelevant” - it makes no sense. Also, at that point I had not read the ruling you referred to, which oddly clearly states the erased data was just a copy loaded to Dropbox; meaning the data exist in at least three places, one one of which is the one in question, that is the disk on the laptop that was erased by the agent. No explanation is provided of what happened to the other copies. See “parties learned that a paralegal in Mr. Wilkinson's office named Karri Layton had uploaded the Neal recordings to a Dropbox account” here: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-woods-260 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-woods-260