Key Insight: Where defendant sought ?the cost of file conversion, Bates labeling, and storing electronic documents produced during litigation,? the clerk taxed only the ?cost of TIFF conversion . . . and the costs of making copies of original dvd?s and the original CD?
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI Taxable costs
Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to preserve digital images which she claimed she took with her cell phone and her daughter?s cell phone and which she claimed to have received from her daughter via email and later forwarded to her attorney (resulting in several electronic copies of the image(s)), the court found that plaintiff had the obligation to preserve the evidence, that she knew or should have known that the images were relevant, that the images and metadata were in fact relevant, and that sanctions were appropriate and thus imposed a permissive adverse inference
Nature of Case: wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Digital images
Key Insight: In dispute over search terms and the appropriate date range for discovery, court cited Defendant?s declarations showing that Plaintiffs? proposed terms would result in a far greater volume of ESI to be reviewed and would triple the costs of production and found ?no reason? not to use Defendant?s proposed terms and reasoned that ?no search is ever perfect,? but that Defendant?s terms would ?likely yield sufficient documents?; date range was restricted to time period of the date of the contract to the present rather than Plaintiffs? proposal to begin two years before the agreement was formed
Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: In action arising from roller coaster accident, court denied motion to impose sanctions for failure to preserve potentially relevant photographs on roller coaster?s ?integrated photography system,? where there was no evidence presented explaining how long the photos were stored in the system (although Defendant ?appear[ed] to argue? that had been erased as early as two days after the accident) where there was no evidence of willful conduct, and where the prejudice was limited based on the availability of other evidence regarding whether other riders were wearing hats on the ride?an important question in the case
Nature of Case: Personal Injury (roller coaster accident)
Electronic Data Involved: Photographs
Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s assertion of a privacy interest in his and his wife?s (a non-party) electronic devices (computers and smartphone) and phone records, the trial court failed to conduct a proper balancing test before granting Plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection and production of the records, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion, that the invocation of a privacy right should have triggered analysis of the relevant balancing test, and that the wife?s non-party status was a factor for consideration, and vacated the trial court?s order and remanded for further consideration
Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Personal computers, smartphone
Key Insight: Where an employee of Defendant first denied he kept a calendar and then testified that he kept a daily electronic calendar but routinely deleted information after a day had passed and that he had continued such deletions even after being told that the entries were sought by the plaintiff in discovery, the court found that Defendant was culpable for the employee?s actions and for its own failure to notify its employees of the duty to preserve and imposed sanctions including an adverse inference, preclusion of the use of certain evidence, and monetary sanctions equal to double the amount incurred for preparation of the sanctions motion
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Calendar entries
Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs argued that Defendant?s document and preservation efforts were inadequate and briefed ?at long length several document production errors, general complications and litigation hold mishandling,? including incorrect volume estimates of documents produced by search terms, date discrepancies in metadata, and corrupt emails (among others) the court noted that Plaintiffs had not obtained a court order against Defendant or attempted to show that it acted in bad faith and found that the allegations did not rise to a level justifying appointment of an outside third party ediscovery auditor, but granted Plaintiffs? motion for depositions of certain document custodians regarding document production issues; court denied motion to require Defendant to recover all documents deleted by certain custodians, including from backup tapes, where the court found that Defendant ?carried out its duty to preserve documents in a manner commensurate with the likely scope and role of [Defendant?s] participation in future litigation? and noted that reasonable efforts do not require the preservation of ?every single scrap of paper?
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions for alleged failure to preserve ?the actual server and software system? allegedly utilized during the violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where the defendant did not establish the relevance of the server or software system
Nature of Case: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Electronic Data Involved: Server and software system utilized by auction company at time of alleged violation by Defendant
Key Insight: Where ?the Cabinet? inadvertently produced privileged emails and later sought a protective order to preclude a finding of waiver, the court held that privilege had been waived citing the delay in requesting the emails? return, the failure to object to use of the emails as a deposition exhibit, the relatively small volume of information within which the emails had been disclosed and the highly relevant content of the emails at issue
Nature of Case: Medicaid reimbursement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court found that ?costs of converting the documents in the format agreed upon by the parties are properly taxable? but that ?metadata extraction? could not be ?properly analogized to making copies and that such costs were not taxable; where costs associated with metadata extraction were not identified separately from ?production copying, file conversion, and metadata extraction? on invoices, court reduced requested costs by one third
Nature of Case: Patent Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs for electronic discovery
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.