Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of additional computer files denied where plaintiff offered no basis either for excusing delay or for deeming the files in question to be so significant as to justify reopening discovery more than five months after its close
Electronic Data Involved: Computer files
Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment as sanction for tardy production of documents, court found that plaintiff had suffered little prejudice from delay and that defendant had worked diligently, did not willfully withhold responsive documents, and did not improperly modify or delete files froom hard drive before voluntarily producing it
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive
Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s request for “electronic discovery of plaintiff’s attorneys’ computers” to determine whether affidavit of service of reply brief was backdated
Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s counsel’s computers
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of vehicle?s ?black box? where information sought was not available elsewhere and was necessary for expert analysis of airbag system despite defendants? arguments that data was irrelevant and unreliable and that retrieving the data would be unduly expensive because of need for technician to travel cross-country; regarding unreliability, court noted that a Daubert motion was not precluded in future
Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from auto accident
Electronic Data Involved: Vehicle’s “black box”
Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval
Nature of Case: Disability discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives
Key Insight: Where there was no evidence that server logs were erased in bad faith and facts suggested that defendant was, at most, merely negligent, since it took reasonable steps to preserve relevant data — it retained and consulted with technical expert; on advice of its expert, it made a copy of the relevant server logs on CDs that could not be overwritten; it stored copies of the data on its server; and it made the data on the server available for inspection by plaintiff prior to the time it was overwritten — and where plaintiff was unable to demonstrate any real prejudice from the loss of some metadata in server logs, magistrate judge found no basis for spoliation sanctions of any kind and recommended denial of plaintiff’s sanctions motion
Nature of Case: Parties asserted claims under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, each arguing that the other had obtained unlawful access to databases
Electronic Data Involved: Metadata; server logs
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to revise earlier court order denying production of computer hard drives for review by forensics expert, declining to adopt the law of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and finding that defendant had violated no duty to preserve since emails were deleted according to routine policy and at the time she filed the complaint, plaintiff made no request that emails be preserved
Nature of Case: Age discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendant’s hard drives so that plaintiff’s computer forensics expert could search them for deleted emails since there was no evidence that defendant had consciously or purposely deleted emails and plaintiff had only “suspicions and allegations” which did not justify the costly and burdensome search requested
Nature of Case: Age discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email
Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, court concluded that adverse inference jury instruction based upon defendant’s mistaken failure to suspend document retention policy that deleted email every 30 days was not misleading or unduly prejudicial
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where defendant breached its duty to preserve by failing to establish a “comprehensive document retention policy” and by failing to properly disseminate the policy to its employees, and conduct evinced ?extraordinarily poor judgment? and ?gross negligence” but not willfulness or bad faith, magistrate recommended that prejudice to plaintiff could be remedied by precluding defendant from cross-examining plaintiff’s financial expert and by instructing the jury about the sanction
Nature of Case: Securities class action
Electronic Data Involved: Underlying data and calculations
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.