iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The judge’s reported leaning toward denying WP Engine’s motion for sanctions against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg has not been confirmed. As of October 9, 2026, the sources available do not include a hearing transcript, minute entry, or written order that shows what the judge said about the motion or how it was resolved. What is established is that WP Engine filed the motion and alleges that the defendants failed to preserve relevant messages, and that Automattic disputes that account.
What the headline claims and what can be verified
The headline combines several separate items. Some are documented, some are reported secondhand, and one, the final outcome, is not established by any source reviewed. The table below separates them.
| Item | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|
| WP Engine filed a motion for sanctions on July 28, 2026, alleging failure to preserve evidence | WP Engine’s public legal update | Filing date and allegation as stated by WP Engine; not a court finding |
| Automattic says its litigation hold, device imaging, and message collection were adequate | Automattic’s August 12, 2026 company post | Automattic’s position; not adjudicated |
| A hearing was set for September 30, 2026 before Magistrate Judge Ajay Krishnan | Search snippet attributed to The Repository | Reported; the full article and a primary court record could not be checked |
| The judge said he was leaning toward denying the motion | The headline and the reporting that repeats it | Not confirmed in a transcript, minute entry, or order |
| The sanctions motion was denied, granted, or otherwise resolved | None located | Not established; no subsequent order was found |
| Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued an order on September 24, 2026 | GovInfo official record | Confirmed as an order on motions to dismiss; it is not a ruling on sanctions |
What WP Engine alleges
WP Engine’s public legal update identifies July 28, 2026 as the filing date for its motion for sanctions. According to that update, the motion argues that the defendants did not preserve evidence directly relevant to the central issues in the litigation. That is WP Engine’s allegation. No court has found that evidence was lost or that any sanction is warranted.
What Automattic says it preserved
Automattic’s August 12, 2026 post, written by Andy Missan, gives the company’s account of its preservation steps. Automattic says:
#1 Best Overall
- A litigation hold was issued.
- Five of Mullenweg’s personal devices were forensically imaged.
- Its vendor collected messages from Telegram, WhatsApp, and Signal through March 2026.
- WP Engine has not identified a missing message about the case.
Automattic’s central statement on that last point reads: “WP Engine cannot identify a single missing message about anything having to do with this case.” That sentence is Automattic’s position and should be attributed to the company. The collection dates and device counts are also Automattic’s own description, not findings in the record reviewed.
Why a reported leaning is not a ruling
Reports about a judge’s view during a hearing can describe several different stages, and they carry different weight. A reader should check which stage a report describes:
- Motion filed. The moving party asks the court for relief. WP Engine’s July 28, 2026 filing is at this stage.
- Hearing held. Both sides argue the motion. A hearing date reported as September 30, 2026 would fall here, but that date is not confirmed by a primary record.
- Tentative or oral view. A judge may signal how they are inclined to rule. This is not necessarily the final decision, and a judge may change course after further briefing or argument.
- Written order. Only a signed order resolves the motion. Until one is located, the motion should be treated as unresolved.
The reported leaning toward denial sits at stage three. Unless a transcript, minute entry, or order confirms it, it should not be presented as a decision.
Keep the September 24 order separate
A September 24, 2026 order by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin appears in the official GovInfo record. It concerns motions to dismiss, not the sanctions motion. WP Engine has characterized that order as allowing most of its claims to proceed; that characterization is WP Engine’s, and the order itself should be read for its exact terms. Confusing the two rulings is the most common way the sanctions dispute gets misreported.
Rank #3
How to confirm the current status
- Check the court’s public docket for the case for any entry on WP Engine’s sanctions motion, including any response, reply, hearing notice, or minute entry dated after September 30, 2026.
- Look for a hearing transcript or minute entry that records what the judge said on the record. A transcript is more reliable than a summary of it.
- Look for a written order on the sanctions motion. Until one exists, the motion is pending.
- Treat party statements, including WP Engine’s update and Automattic’s post, as each side’s account.
Until one of these records is located, the accurate summary is that WP Engine has moved for sanctions, Automattic disputes the allegation, and the outcome of the motion has not been confirmed.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
