A Delaware federal judge on Wednesday denied GN Netcom's request for a new trial in its antitrust suit against rival headset-maker Plantronics, rejecting claims that the court mishandled evidence related to alleged spoliation by a top Plantronics executive.

U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware said instructions given to a federal jury in October had not deprived GN Netcom Inc. of a fair trial in the case, which the company valued at $212 million.

The Wilmington jury deliberated for just one hour before returning a verdict Oct. 18, 2017, that Plantronics Inc. did not violate U.S. antitrust law, despite instructions that it could assume thousands of emails—deleted at the order of Plantronics' former head of sales—would have cut against Plantronics' defense.

In post-trial briefing, GN argued that Stark's sanctions did not go far enough, and said Plantronics instead should have been hit with a default judgment, in addition to a $5 million penalty previously levied by the court. Stark's decision to allow the permissive adverse inference, GN said, had ignored the egregious nature of the spoliation and how damaging it was to its case.

Stark, however, said he “entirely” disagreed with GN's assessment. In a 14-page memorandum order, the judge noted that jury members heard detailed facts regarding the spoliation, and said the GN had been allowed to present evidence and argument on the issue throughout the trial.

“When one looks at how the court actually handled spoliation, and considers the substantial evidence Plantronics presented at trial, as well as the evidence GN did not present—evidence that would have come from GN' s own files (had such evidence existed)—the only reasonable conclusion is that GN was not substantially prejudiced by the court's decisions with respect to spoliation,” Stark said.

Meanwhile, Stark also rejected as “at least equally off-base” Plantronics' motion for $877,000 in attorney fees and costs for having to defend a claim that GN ended up dropping halfway through the weeklong trial.

According to Plantronics, counsel for GN told Stark last August that it “could come up with” a standalone theory for tortious interference, but later withdrew the charge without presenting any evidence to the jury. The company's request represented one-fourth of the fees it incurred in defending the four-count suit from Aug. 29 through the end of October 2017.

But Stark said Plantronics' assertions misrepresented statements GN's attorney had made during a hearing on the admissibility of expert testimony and could not be interpreted as a bad faith effort to disrupt the case.

The claims for tortious interference, Stark said, overlapped with GN's antitrust allegations, and the company had made a legitimate and strategic decision to jettison it after surviving motions for dismissal and summary judgment.

Attorneys for both sides were not immediately available to comment on Thursday.

GN Netcom was 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 was 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 GN Netcom v. Plantronics.