The company, according to the court, “failed at the start of discovery to check thoroughly its local servers and its archives for relevant documents, failed to compare the various versions of relevant documents on those databases, failed to produce documents as they were kept in the ordinary course of business, and failed to reproduce thoroughly and accurately all documents and their attachments. Prior to litigation PwC had permitted destruction of documents despite committing to their preservation. Despite these failures, PwC time and time again told the court and the parties that it had made a complete disclosure of all relevant documents and attachments and that it had produced them in the order in which they were stored by PwC. The only conclusion the court can reach is that PwC and/or its counsel engaged in deliberate fraud or was so recklessly indifferent to their responsibilities as a party to the litigation that they failed to take the most basic steps to fulfill those responsibilities.” The Magistrate found that PwC’s conduct had made it impossible to try the case with any confidence in the outcome, and concluded that any lesser sanction would effectively “unwind” three years of litigation. See In re: Telxon Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 5:98cv2876, 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27296 (N.D.Ohio July 16, 2004).