Thompson, a former Indiana University Bloomington student, sued the university alleging violations of Title IX, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and state law claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress. The underlying dispute centers on an incident in October 2021, when Thompson was found partially nude and disoriented on campus with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.298 percent.
Following the incident, Thompson consented to a sexual assault exam at Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital. She chose not to report the incident to law enforcement at that time, allowing IUH to collect and secure an anonymous sexual assault kit in accordance with the Monroe County Sexual Assault Response Team Protocol.
Thompson’s attorneys later notified the university of the alleged assault and requested that the university preserve evidence, including the sexual assault kit. However, Thompson’s counsel did not provide the specific identification number for the anonymous kit to the university or Indiana University Police at that time.
The sexual assault kit was ordered for destruction by a criminal investigator in the Monroe County Prosecutor’s Office on April 4, 2024. The destruction occurred under routine administrative procedures for anonymous kits held for over one year, as the victim had not reported the incident to law enforcement within the required timeframe.
In its order denying the motion, the court held that the sexual assault kit was not relevant to Thompson’s claims against the university. The court noted that Thompson does not need to prove a sexual assault occurred to sustain her claims, which are based on the university’s administrative actions following the incident rather than the forensic investigation of the assault itself.
The court further found no evidence that the university destroyed the kit in bad faith, which is a prerequisite for spoliation sanctions under Seventh Circuit law. The court emphasized that the university had not been provided with the kit’s identifying information until after it was destroyed, and there was no indication the university acted to hide adverse information.
Thompson also sought sanctions for the deletion of her and an officer’s email accounts, as well as building access logs. The court denied these requests as well, finding that the email deletions followed standard retention policies and that the access logs contained information duplicative of video footage already in the university’s possession.
The court denied Thompson’s request for attorney’s fees associated with the sanctions motion, noting that fee awards are only permissible when a party is successful in their motion for sanctions.