WP Engine and Audrey Dispute Document Production and Spoliation Allegations

In a joint filing submitted to the U.S. District Court, WP Engine alleges that Audrey HC, LLC and Audrey Capital, LLC failed to produce subpoenaed documents and raises concerns of possible spoliation.

While Audrey disputes the claims, arguing that all responsive materials have already been produced through party discovery and that no additional non-duplicative documents exist.

WP Engine raises spoliation concerns

WP Engine argues that Audrey HC and Audrey Capital failed to produce documents in response to subpoenas served in September 2025, despite previously agreeing to do so.

According to the filing:

“Audrey agreed to produce responsive documents. Seven months later, with less than two weeks left for discovery, it has produced none.”

WP Engine also argues that Audrey is not merely a peripheral witness in the case. The filing describes Audrey as entities controlled by Matt Mullenweg and alleges that Audrey employs individuals involved in operating WordPress.org, which WP Engine characterizes as central to the dispute.

The filing states that WP Engine sought documents related to what it describes as Defendants’ “nuclear war against WPE,” along with materials connected to trademarks, licensing, WP Engine’s use of WordPress-related assets, the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin, community contributions, and statements underlying defamation claims.

Concerns Around Samuel “Otto” Wood‘s Records

The filing also references Audrey employee Samuel “Otto” Wood, stating that discovery has shown his involvement in conduct relevant to the litigation, although portions describing that involvement are redacted.

WP Engine challenged Audrey’s claim that a review of Wood’s materials identified no “non-duplicative responsive documents,” calling that position “alarming given his involvement in the events at issue.”

According to WP Engine, Audrey initially agreed to produce Wood’s emails and a single Slack channel. Audrey later stated that its review “did not identify any responsive materials.”

WP Engine says Audrey later clarified during a meet-and-confer discussion that it meant Wood had no “non-duplicative” responsive materials.

“They Were Destroyed“: WP Engine Raises Spoliation Concerns

WP Engine argues that Audrey’s explanation raises concerns about possible destruction of evidence.

“Audrey’s purported inability to find responsive materials in Mr. Wood’s possession leads to the same conclusion: they were destroyed.”

Spoliation generally refers to the destruction or failure to preserve evidence relevant to litigation.

WP Engine also points to other document productions that it says contain communications involving Wood that were not fully reflected in Audrey’s own production.

The filing further questions whether Audrey conducted searches across Wood’s broader data sources, including hard drives, shared drives, and messaging applications.

According to the filing:

“Indeed, Audrey has conspicuously avoided saying whether it searched Mr. Wood’s hard drives, shared drives, or messaging applications or those of any other Audrey employee…”

DreamHost Emails Raise Additional Questions

WP Engine also points to DreamHost emails that allegedly contain Audrey-related communications not included in Defendants’ production.

The filing argues that these emails raise additional questions about the completeness of Audrey’s discovery efforts.

What WP Engine Wants the Court to Order

In its requested relief, WP Engine asks the court to compel Audrey to fully respond to the subpoenas and produce all responsive materials.

The requested relief includes:

• Production of Samuel “Otto” Wood’s documents
• Production of the relevant Slack channel
• Full compliance with subpoena requests
• A sworn declaration explaining Audrey’s discovery process and searches

Audrey Rejects Spoliation Allegations

Audrey rejects WP Engine’s claims and says it has acted appropriately throughout the discovery process.

“Audrey has acted in good faith throughout.”

Audrey characterizes WP Engine’s filing as an attempt to “manufacture a dispute on the eve of fact discovery’s close.”

The filing also rejects the spoliation allegations as:

“Inflammatory and unsupported.”

Audrey Says Responsive Documents Were Already Produced

On Samuel “Otto” Wood, Audrey says it reviewed his emails and Slack messages and confirmed that:

“Mr. Wood’s responsive documents were already produced.”

Audrey also disputes WP Engine’s claims that additional materials such as notes, drafts, or communications from other systems remain missing.

According to Audrey, its review covered the locations where responsive records would ordinarily exist based on the nature of Wood’s work.

The filing states:

“WP Engine also says Audrey has not produced Mr. Wood’s ‘notes, drafts, or communications’ or said if it searched his ‘hard drives, shared drives, or messaging applications.’ But Audrey’s investigation encompassed the sources where responsive documents would reside given the nature of Mr. Wood’s work.”

Audrey Pushes Back on DreamHost Email Claims

Audrey also addressed the DreamHost emails cited by WP Engine, arguing that the emails primarily consisted of scheduling communications involving Matt Mullenweg’s assistants rather than substantive discussions.

According to the filing:

“The DreamHost emails, which WP Engine first raised less than two weeks ago, are scheduling messages from Mr. Mullenweg’s assistants. Arranging a meeting on a topic is not a communication about that topic, and any substantive discussions with DreamHost were produced.”

Audrey Calls WP Engine’s Requests “Disproportionate“

Audrey argues that WP Engine’s requested relief is excessive and unnecessary.

The filing states that all responsive documents have already been produced, additional searches were conducted, and no non-duplicative materials exist.

Audrey also says it is willing to confirm the scope of its searches and continue meet-and-confer discussions, but maintains that the motion should ultimately be denied.

Broader Background of the WP Engine vs Automattic Dispute

The legal battle between WP Engine and Automattic/Matt Mullenweg dates back to Matt Mullenweg’s WordCamp US 2024 keynote, which triggered a series of disputes involving trademarks, WordPress ecosystem governance, platform access, and the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin.

Since then, the dispute has expanded into multiple legal and procedural battles involving both parties.

What Happens Next

Fact discovery in the case is nearing completion, with disputes over document production now becoming a major point of contention between the parties.

As of now, the next hearing date is scheduled for June 4, 2026.