🚨Javon Hadley has filed a 12 page response opposing the motion for sanctions filed by Desiree Perez’s side over alleged spoliation of evidence involving his cellphone. Perez’s side wants the court to instruct the jury that Javon had the Hik Connect surveillance application installed on his phone and used it to monitor Desiree Perez and her family. Javon’s attorneys argue that such an instruction would essentially resolve a central disputed issue in the case without sufficient evidence to support it. According to the filing, Javon’s phone was seized by Miami Dade police when he was arrested on April 5, 2024, approximately one year before the civil lawsuit was filed. His criminal attorney subsequently filed a motion requesting the return of his property, but the request was denied. The phone has reportedly remained in government custody ever since. One particularly interesting detail appears in paragraph 8 of Javon’s newly filed sworn declaration. Javon states that during that period, he believed he was being followed, tracked, and monitored, and that he believed Desiree Perez was involved. He claims that because of those concerns for his privacy and personal safety, he frequently changed his phone’s passcode instead of keeping the same one for an extended period. According to the forensic findings cited in the response, the passcode was last changed on January 30, 2024. Javon maintains that he genuinely cannot remember it more than two years later and insists that he has never remotely wiped, reset, altered, or deleted anything from the phone since authorities seized it. His attorneys also acknowledge that the judge previously expressed doubts about his inability to recall the passcode. However, they emphasize that the court never found he acted in bad faith or ordered him to disclose the code. Instead, he was required to cover the cost of a forensic vendor capable of bypassing the phone’s security. Another important issue involves the forensic examination. Guidepost, the forensic vendor, reportedly advised that an extraction could still potentially recover a list of installed applications. However, counsel for Perez’s side instructed the vendor to stop working, citing concerns that further attempts could destroy or delete information. Meanwhile, Homeland Security Investigations had previously obtained a forensic image of the phone. Guidepost examined that image, which it characterized as partial, and reported that it did not see the Blink or Hikvision applications among the available app data. Javon’s attorneys argue that Perez’s side cannot claim evidence was intentionally destroyed when the phone still exists, remains in government custody, and potentially relevant information may be obtainable through other sources, including Hikvision and the camera systems themselves. They also point out that the Hik Connect account identified in the litigation, “dmlope13,” allegedly belongs to Demoree Hadley, not Javon. In his declaration, Javon expressly denies creating or owning that account. His attorneys further accuse Perez’s side of failing to comply with procedural requirements before filing the sanctions motion, including the obligation to confer with opposing counsel and the applicable deadline for raising discovery disputes. They are asking the court to deny the sanctions motion and award Javon his reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses for responding. For now, these are Javon’s arguments in opposition. The court has not ruled on this sanctions request. Response: drive.google.com/file/d/1LO_…