GN Netcom Inc. is asking for a new trial in its antitrust case against Plantronics Inc., arguing that a Delaware federal judge did not go far enough in punishing its opponent for deleting emails that provided germane evidence in the case.

The move comes less than a month after a federal jury in Wilmington cleared Plantronics of allegations that its distributor agreements had violated U.S. antitrust law, despite instructions that it could assume the thousands of spoliated emails would have cut against the headset-maker's defense.

On Thursday, GN told U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware that the instructions had only confused jury members, and argued that Plantronics instead should have been hit with a dispositive sanction, in addition to a $3 million penalty that had already been levied by the court.

“This is most obvious from the fact that the jury found GN had proven the relevant market, but did not find for GN on its substantive antitrust claims, all of which turned on GN's ability to put forth exactly the type of evidence that Plantronics intentionally, and in bad faith, deleted in this case,” GN's attorneys said in a 21-page court filing.

“The jury's verdict makes clear that the court's sanction of a permissive adverse inference did nothing to cure the prejudice to GN caused by Plantronics' spoliation of evidence.”

Last summer, Stark found that Don Houston, Plantronics' senior vice president of sales at the time, had ordered employees to delete corporate emails during discovery, wiping out potentially thousands of documents that could have helped GN build its case. Houston has since left the company.

The bad faith spoliation cost Plantronics $3 million in sanctions and another $2 million in attorney fees and costs, according to the company's regulatory filings. Stark also narrowed the scope of Plantronics' unsuccessful motion for summary judgment earlier this year and told jury members that they were allowed to infer that the deleted communications were relevant to the case.

“In other words, your role is to determine whether Plantronics' spoliation tilted the playing field against GN,” he said, according to a copy of the final instructions presented to the jury at trial in October.

In its motion, the Denmark-based firm argued that Stark instead should have entered a default judgment against Plantronics for interfering with the court proceedings. The error, GN said, was then compounded when Stark barred GN from presenting evidence that the U.S. General Services Administration had proposed barring Plantronics, at least temporarily, from continuing to serve as a government contractor after learning of the spoliation.

The decisions, GN said, allowed Plantronics to present one-sided evidence and paint the case as a dispute between a pro-government firm and a foreign plaintiff.

An attorney for Santa Cruz, California-based Plantronics did not immediately respond Friday to a call seeking comment on GN's motion. The company has said that its distributor agreements were actually pro-competitive, and it has denied any violations of U.S. antitrust laws.

In October, Plantronics said that it was now “putting the matter behind us.”

GN said that it was considering an appeal, but the decision had not impacted its bottom line for 2017. Attorneys for the company did not respond Friday to calls seeking comment on the case.

GN is represented by Christopher S. Finnerty, Jeffrey S. Patterson, Michael R. Murphy and Morgan T. Nickerson of K&L Gates and Joseph J. Farnan Jr., Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP.

Plantronics is represented by Jonathan M. Jacobson, Chul Pak, David H. Reichenberg, Robert Corp and Yuan Ji of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Jack B. Blumenfeld, Rodger D. Smith II and Jennifer Ying of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell.

The case is captioned GN Netcom v. Plantronics.

GN Netcom Inc. is asking for a new trial in its antitrust case against Plantronics Inc., arguing that a Delaware federal judge did not go far enough in punishing its opponent for deleting emails that provided germane evidence in the case.

The move comes less than a month after a federal jury in Wilmington cleared Plantronics of allegations that its distributor agreements had violated U.S. antitrust law, despite instructions that it could assume the thousands of spoliated emails would have cut against the headset-maker's defense.

On Thursday, GN told U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware that the instructions had only confused jury members, and argued that Plantronics instead should have been hit with a dispositive sanction, in addition to a $3 million penalty that had already been levied by the court.

“This is most obvious from the fact that the jury found GN had proven the relevant market, but did not find for GN on its substantive antitrust claims, all of which turned on GN's ability to put forth exactly the type of evidence that Plantronics intentionally, and in bad faith, deleted in this case,” GN's attorneys said in a 21-page court filing.

“The jury's verdict makes clear that the court's sanction of a permissive adverse inference did nothing to cure the prejudice to GN caused by Plantronics' spoliation of evidence.”

Last summer, Stark found that Don Houston, Plantronics' senior vice president of sales at the time, had ordered employees to delete corporate emails during discovery, wiping out potentially thousands of documents that could have helped GN build its case. Houston has since left the company.

The bad faith spoliation cost Plantronics $3 million in sanctions and another $2 million in attorney fees and costs, according to the company's regulatory filings. Stark also narrowed the scope of Plantronics' unsuccessful motion for summary judgment earlier this year and told jury members that they were allowed to infer that the deleted communications were relevant to the case.

“In other words, your role is to determine whether Plantronics' spoliation tilted the playing field against GN,” he said, according to a copy of the final instructions presented to the jury at trial in October.

In its motion, the Denmark-based firm argued that Stark instead should have entered a default judgment against Plantronics for interfering with the court proceedings. The error, GN said, was then compounded when Stark barred GN from presenting evidence that the U.S. General Services Administration had proposed barring Plantronics, at least temporarily, from continuing to serve as a government contractor after learning of the spoliation.

The decisions, GN said, allowed Plantronics to present one-sided evidence and paint the case as a dispute between a pro-government firm and a foreign plaintiff.

An attorney for Santa Cruz, California-based Plantronics did not immediately respond Friday to a call seeking comment on GN's motion. The company has said that its distributor agreements were actually pro-competitive, and it has denied any violations of U.S. antitrust laws.

In October, Plantronics said that it was now “putting the matter behind us.”

GN said that it was considering an appeal, but the decision had not impacted its bottom line for 2017. Attorneys for the company did not respond Friday to calls seeking comment on the case.

GN is represented by Christopher S. Finnerty, Jeffrey S. Patterson, Michael R. Murphy and Morgan T. Nickerson of K&L Gates and Joseph J. Farnan Jr., Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP.

Plantronics is represented by Jonathan M. Jacobson, Chul Pak, David H. Reichenberg, Robert Corp and Yuan Ji of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Jack B. Blumenfeld, Rodger D. Smith II and Jennifer Ying of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell.

The case is captioned GN Netcom v. Plantronics.