Key Insight: Where defendants failed to timely place a litigation hold and where electronic evidence was subsequently destroyed by an automatic deletion system, court declined to impose sanctions upon plaintiff?s failure to show that the evidence destroyed was relevant to her claims
Nature of Case: Violations of Title VII and breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Trial court erred in admitting computer generated animation allegedly depicting the events that lead to trial where State failed to provide notice of its intent to use the animation, where the animation was created by a non-expert witness who lacked personal knowledge of the events, and where the State failed to lay a foundation for the evidence based on the incorrect assumption that the animation was merely demonstrative; appellate court determined animation was more prejudicial than probative where it did not merely illustrate a witness?s testimony but rather was ?a collage of information? from each of the State?s witnesses presented as fact
Nature of Case: Attempted kidnapping, false imprisonment, attempted armed robbery
Electronic Data Involved: Computer generated animation
Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed its inability to timely respond to defendant?s discovery requests was caused by defendant?s failure to provide access to Medi-web website, court rejected claims that defendant had intentionally misled plaintiff but reasoned that defendant?s behavior ?was not exemplary? and that the parties should have addressed the website when developing their discovery plan; court?s order upheld prior evidentiary sanction for late productions of evidence related to claims of breach of duty, but excepted evidence not known to plaintiffs until after accessing Medi-web
Nature of Case: Breach of statutory and contractual duties
Electronic Data Involved: Website
Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s initial investigation into publicly posted Internet content evidencing offers for counterfeit products revealed that several previously identified addresses belonged to the same individual and where plaintiff identified additional potentially infringing sites, court granted plaintiff?s motion to modify the court ordered inspection protocol to allow investigation beyond the 67 websites previously identified; court rejected defendants? argument that modification should be denied as burdensome where plaintiff was to bear the cost of the searching and rejected defendants privacy concerns in light of expert?s articulated methodology for pinpointing only potentially relevant material
Nature of Case: Trademark and copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Website Content
Key Insight: Where defendant admitted use of a particular computer to share copy written files but was unable to remember relevant details of the file sharing and put the question of the significance and scope of his infringement at issue, court granted plaintiffs? motion to copy and inspect defendant?s computer but ordered very strict protective order in light of defendant?s significant privacy concerns
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records related to file-sharing software and metadata associated with music files, including deleted files
Key Insight: Where, despite plaintiffs? failure to specify each technology individually, plaintiffs? preservation order was deemed sufficient because the instructions to preserve utilized terminology customarily used within the company to refer a category of technologies, including those at issue, court nonetheless ordered parties to negotiate stipulated Preservation Order going forward; court ordered monetary sanctions for failure to preserve prior employee?s notebook, but declined to order sanctions for plaintiff?s alleged instructions to employees to delete emails absent evidence that employees willfully deleted emails after the preservation order was issued and where one employee at issue testified that emails subject to preservation were not among those deleted and where a second employee at issue deleted emails prior to duty to preserve and subsequently located back up drive with substantial number of non-email documents
Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment
Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI
Key Insight: No abuse of discretion in granting defendant?s motion for summary judgment on the issue of destruction of evidence where defendant offered uncontroverted evidence that his partner destroyed computers, without defendant?s involvement, because they were ?obsolete? and where plaintiffs failed to ?raise a disputed issue of material fact regarding [defendant?s] responsibility for [his partner?s] destruction of the computer and other electronic evidence?
Nature of Case: Legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and securities fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Computers (hard drives)
Key Insight: Trial court?s ruling allowing admission of transcripts of online chats into evidence was affirmed where such evidence was considered ??original? in the context of computers? under the rules of evidence and thus satisfied the Best Evidence Rule; court reasoned that even if the transcripts had not satisfied Best Evidence Rule, transcripts were admissible as copies because the originals had been destroyed, but not in bad faith, and the transcripts (?duplicates?) were authenticated by the officer?s testimony regarding how the transcripts were created and the reliability of their content
Nature of Case: Internet stalking
Electronic Data Involved: Transcripts of online chat
Key Insight: Upon finding that because of the ?relative inaccessibility of the information sought?responding to the request would be overly burdensome? where defendant was unable to query its database for the information requested and upon finding that the information sought would not satisfy plaintiff?s purpose without additional information, court found that defendant had established that ?the significance of the discovery to the issues in the present case is substantially outweighed by the burden? and granted defendant?s motion for a protective order
Nature of Case: Wrongful denial of claim for disability benefits
Electronic Data Involved: Database contents
Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in granting plaintiff?s motion to strike defendants? affidavit and attached emails where emails were not properly authenticated; appellate court found defendants? reliance on Willis v. Hill, 116 Ga. App. 848 (1967) to appeal the trial court?s ruling was misplaced where Willis held that ?”[u]pon production of copies pursuant to a notice to produce, the producing party admits the correctness of the copies and further proof is unnecessary in order for the moving party[, i.e., the requesting party,] to introduce them into evidence? but where in the present case the emails sought to be admitted were produced by defendants, i.e. the party seeking their admission, and thus Willis was inapplicable
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, collect on open account
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.