Failing to preserve evidence is sacntionable, even if it isn’t willful destruction. The penalties generally aren’t as stiff, but if the judges accepted “Oopsie, we accidentally destroyed evidence we were required to preserve” as a defense, there would be an incentive to destroy evidence and claim it was an accident.

The fact that most companies still turn over evidence that’s damning to their own cases is the proof that it’s generally a bad idea to accidentally destroy evidence.

Look at it another way: If you’re speeding and get pulled over, would a judge let you off if you tell him you were only doing 70 in a 35 because you weren’t paying attention to the road?

So, I had to double check myself on this one, and my original answer wasn’t entirely correct.

If it is found that the destruction of evidence was intentional then yes, the jury can be instructed to view the missing information in the least favorable light, or a case can simply be outright dismissed or a default judgement entered.

However even in the case of “accidental” (ie, not provably intentional) deletion the court can still take various measures to redress the balance in some way.

I am not a lawyer but this guy is - https://joneskell.com/how-spoliation-of-evidence-impacts-litigation/