Key Insight: Court ordered cost-shifting (50/50) where plaintiff sought information about Verizon’s past and present customers even though material was not “inaccessible” under Zubulake analysis, since data was available in Verizon’s computer databases or archives
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: Computerized customer data
Key Insight: Sanctions in form of preliminary injunction preventing defendant from contacting MPCT clients granted, after defendant violated preservation order by deleting documents from laptop and defragmenting hard drive, thus preventing the recovery of deleted data
Nature of Case: Enforcement of non-competition agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents stored on laptop
Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion to compel copy of “list files” screen, which listed each document created by name or number, as well as the size of the document, the date on which it was created and the date on which it was last edited, granted where plaintiff demonstrated need to determine whether key documents were back-dated
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination (discrimination based on race/national origin)
Electronic Data Involved: Copy of “list files” screen showing details of files on computer of individual defendant
Key Insight: Judge denied defendants’ motion to disqualify him from further proceedings, which argued that judge’s appearance at electronic discovery CLE, where he gave presentation entitled “How a Judge Expects You To Handle Electronic Records in Discovery” and discussed the case, had the appearance of partiality
Nature of Case: Opera company sued union
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic discovery CLE presentation by judge
Key Insight: On defendant’s motion for reconsideration, court again described numerous discovery failings by the defendants, concluded that it would adhere to its prior decision at 212 F.R.D. 178, and further rejected two new arguments belatedly advanced by defendant relating the merits of plaintiff’s underlying claims
Nature of Case: Opera company sued union
Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic documents; hard drives
Key Insight: Where defendants avowed that they were aware of their obligations and have taken and are continuing to take all necessary steps to preserve all potentially relevant electronic evidence, court determined there was no “imminent risk” that any deleted data would be overwritten and rendered irretrievable, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for order lifting automatic stay on discovery for purpose of preserving and restoring deleted email
Nature of Case: Securities class action
Electronic Data Involved: Email allegedly deleted by individual defendant and his subordinates
Key Insight: Declining to determine whether its May 13, 2003 order contemplated the production of deleted files, court overruled defendant’s objections to special master’s order denying request for production of deleted files, finding that defendant’s request was untimely and that “the process of recovering deleted files at this late stage of litigation would be an undue burden on Medtronic and is based, the court’s opinion, on mere speculation that relevant deleted files could be recovered”
Nature of Case: Intellectual property litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted files
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to allow experts to perform physical inspection of their computer equipment and files, since full disclosure of email had been provided by defendants and inspection was likely to be unduly burdensome
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer equipment and files
Key Insight: Defendant’s skepticism that plaintiff had not produced copies of all responsive documents did not entitle defendant to conduct physical inspection of plaintiff’s hard drives
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and quantum meruit claim
Electronic Data Involved: Computer and disc drives
Key Insight: Plaintiff’s failure to preserve computer printouts and telephone lists loaded onto Palm Pilot did not warrant an adverse inference instruction, but did warrant monetary sanctions of $28,271.75 to be paid by party (not his attorney) to compensate the victim for attorneys’ fees and expenses arising both from additional discovery required to locate equivalent information by alternative means and from the motion practice necessitated by the spoliation
Nature of Case: Action seeking monetary damages and specific performance of stock option agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy material loaded onto Palm Pilot
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.