Key Insight: State appellate court found no error in trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of certain hard drives of defendant for the purpose of allowing an expert to determine whether they contained relevant email, since discovery requests at issue made no mention of hard drives
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives
Key Insight: Further to its December 20, 2006 order granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, 2006 WL 3759914, court awarded plaintiff $134,373 representing reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including fees of computer forensics expert) incurred because of defendant’s discovery misconduct
Nature of Case: Insurance fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives
Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce mirror image copies of hard drives at location of defendants’ computer forensics expert, since court saw no reason to treat such discovery differently than traditional (paper) discovery, any privacy concerns were addressed in the protocol proposed by defendants, and it was less burdensome than forcing defendants’ experts to conduct their testing at the site of plaintiff’s experts
Nature of Case: Patent litigation involving claims of forgery and fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image of hard drive
Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement counterclaims, based in part on adverse inference stemming from plaintiff’s failure to preserve and produce relevant evidence; defendant showed that substantial portion of deleted files recovered by its forensic expert were favorable to its position on various claims
Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged defendant improperly disparaged plaintiff’s product, and defendant asserted counterlaims for copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data on hard drives
Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to answer certain interrogatories regarding customers and projects and to produce “a complete unedited electronic copy of Defendant’s database” which contained the requested information
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that portion of its January 31, 2007 order adopting magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff had waived any privilege that may have applied to the 37 Non-Lotus Notes Documents
Nature of Case: Patent litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email
Key Insight: District court judge adopted magistrate judge’s January 17, 2007 report and recommendation, overruling objections of the parties
Nature of Case: FOIA action
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy file
Key Insight: Court overruled plaintiff?s objection to Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition seeking testimony of person most knowledgeable about plaintiff?s computers/mainframe, which also requested that the deponent bring the mainframe or the ability to access the mainframe with him/her at the time of the deposition; court found that the information was relevant and discoverable, subject to the noticing party?s concession to take the deposition at the place of the mainframe
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Mainframe computer
Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion to compel forensic inspection of plaintiff’s computer and defendant’s sole expense, but limited the scope of the inspection to determining whether, during the relevant time period, plaintiff accessed defendant’s website or a website which advertised defendant’s services, what interaction plaintiff had with such websites and what, if any, information concerning those internet transactions was subsequently deleted
Nature of Case: Cellular phone user alleged that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by sending text messages to plaintiff’s cell phone without his permission
Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s computer hard drive
Key Insight: Where principal of co-plaintiff forwarded 15 email exchanges with counsel to plaintiffs’ testifying expert witness, and expert witness produced them as part of his file even though he stated he did not consider them when forming his opinion, court ordered production of such emails under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and waste
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.