Key Insight: Court declined to compel re-production of data in native format where no form of production was requested and where the producing non-party had already produced responsive information in hard copy
Nature of Case: debt collection
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s request for forensic examinations of certain of Defendant?s computers, despite Defendant?s failure to produce internal communications regarding the allegedly infringing jewelry designs where, despite acknowledging Plaintiff?s suspicions, there was no concrete evidence of ?concealment, destruction of evidence, or failure to preserve documents and information? and where Plaintiff was able to explore its suspicions through other ?written and oral discovery tools?
Nature of Case: Copyright and Trademark infringement and unfair competition
Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI
Key Insight: For Plaintiff?s failure to preserve potentially relevant emails and other ESI (including the failure to issue a litigation hold) despite its duty to preserve (which was triggered upon its discovery of alleged packaging discrepancies in diaper shipments delivered by the defendant), the court declined to preclude Plaintiff from offering certain evidence, noting the lack of bad faith, but ordered an adverse inference stating that Plaintiff negligently deleted relevant emails that would have been favorable to the defendant and for Plaintiff to pay Defendant?s attorney?s fees and costs associated with the motion for sanctions
Nature of Case: Claims related to packaging discrepancies in diapers delivered to Plaintiff that were intended for resale
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: Where review of sample of unproduced documents revealed possibility that more responsive documents had been missed than had been produced, court ordered producing party to re-review at-issue custodians? files and to confer with requesting party regarding expansion of search terms; court rejected producing party?s arguments that its initial review was ??on par with and likely more accurate than typical document reviews,? citing cases and studies finding that human reviewers are disconcertingly error-prone? reasoning in part that producing party ?can, and has, utilized review technologies that can, if used properly, be expected to identify more than a mere half of the potentially responsive documents.?
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, declaratory judgment
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant sought to avoid production of ESI arguing that the retrieval of the requested information from its information systems would be unduly burdensome because of the manner in which the ESI was stored, the court noted that accepting such an explanation would create a ?perverse incentive? encouraging companies to store their data in a way that made it inaccessible except at great burden or cost and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court ordered defendant to produce an image of the hard drives of its four relevant information systems to Plaintiff?s expert who would retrieve the relevant information and provide it to defendant for review before production to the plaintiff; Plaintiff would bear the costs (voluntarily).
Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (sending of unwanted faxes)
Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to recipients of faxes
Key Insight: Court indicated that dispute over whether to compel Defendants to conduct additional searches in an expanded date range turned on Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and the question of whether the burden outweighed the likely benefit but, citing Plaintiff?s prior offer to more narrowly tailor the search terms to be utilized and to contribute to the reasonable costs of Defendants? review, ordered the parties to meet to attempt to reach agreement on a more focused search and to negotiate a reasonable cost sharing agreement and indicated that the court would consider shifting ?an appropriate share of the costs of production? once a determination of the cost was made
Nature of Case: Interference with a contract and prospective economic advantage, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena seeking the production of documents reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she could not ?otherwise obtain access to the documents requested,? and further reasoned that ?even if the documents sought might be relevant? (which was questionable), the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it sought documents and correspondence going back 7 years, when the incident at issue occurred 11 months ago, and because it commanded production of ?all? such documents and made ?no allowance? for materials protected by privilege. In quashing the subpoena, the court also noted the availability of many of the public documents sought from the state court record.
Nature of Case: False arrest and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: Non-party’s documents and emails
Key Insight: Upon third party?s objection to Defendant?s subpoena and its motion for cost shifting, the court found that the third party both had an interest in the litigation and an ?ability to pay all or most of the costs to comply with the subpoena? but nonetheless concluded that ?it would not bear all of the costs of compliance? and thus ordered the third party to select an e-Discovery vendor to search the key words agreed upon and ordered that Defendant shall reimburse the third party ?one third of the vendor costs to harvest the electronically stored information?
Nature of Case: Product liability
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Noting that ?[t]he Lanham Act and the Copyright Act allow recovery of reasonable costs that are otherwise non-taxable under 28 U.S.C. ? 1920? and that Defendant?s claimed e-discovery costs were reasonable, the court reasoned that ?[c]ourts have found e-discovery costs reasonable and recoverable if they were ?not accrued merely for the convenience of counsel,?? that the claimed costs ?were mainly accrued in response to [Plaintiff?s] discovery requests (e.g. the majority of the costs are for converting materials into the agreed upon .tiff format),? and that Plaintiff had not ?identified any costs that [were] ?merely for the convenience of counsel?? and thus found that Defendant?s e-discovery costs were recoverable
Nature of Case: Trade dress and copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff was previously sanctioned for violating the stipulated protective order when Plaintiff?s President viewed Defendant?s source code; where Plaintiff?s president later deleted evidence related to his violation of the stipulated protective order despite a duty to preserve (arising from Defendant?s requests for preservation and two court orders requiring the same), made no effort to preserve the other contents of his laptop, and made ?inconsistent representations to the court?; and where a second employee claimed he was not notified of his preservation obligations and thus wiped the contents of his laptop (at a ?suspicious? time), including a relevant power point, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions absent a showing of prejudice and upon its determination that the orders requiring preservation were arguably ambiguous (?insofar as they required Plaintiff to preserve evidence while at the same time ordering Plaintiff to return discs and delete source code, as Defendants requested?) but did order a monetary award of reasonable expenses that the defendants incurred in taking expedited discovery regarding the source code violation and indicated that ?[t]he court may well allow? Plaintiff?s President?s credibility to be impeached at trial regarding his violation of the protective order
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of laptop(s)
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.