Key Insight: Court denied government’s motion to compel production of opposing party’s rebuttal expert’s proprietary database since rebuttal expert report complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and no further disclosures were warranted
Nature of Case: Taxpayer petition for readjustment
Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary database maintained by taxpayer’s rebuttal expert
Key Insight: Trial court’s order requiring witness to bring with her a computer or have access at the time of her deposition to a computer capable of logging onto the database and capable of searching, sorting and printing the data on the computer as requested by plaintiff’s counsel in the deposition was overbroad and vacated; however, witness would be required to testify about database since defendant had failed to establish that database was a trade secret
Nature of Case: Personal injury from falling merchandise
Electronic Data Involved: Database re accidents and injuries occurring at Lowe’s stores
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s request “to go into Ford’s databases and look for any relevant information that might be there,” finding the request for production to be overbroad and unduly burdensome
Nature of Case: Product liability
Electronic Data Involved: Databases
Key Insight: Confident that defense counsel would advise their clients of preservation duty and admonish them of dire consequences of violating same, court denied plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence in absence of some proof that evidence may be lost or destroyed without it
Nature of Case: Drug products liability
Electronic Data Involved: Discoverable information in paper or electronic format
Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to extend expert discovery deadline for purposes of reviewing plaintiff’s experts computer data and computerized versions of preliminary and superseded versions of work, where material was produced in hard copy form months earlier and defendant had been dilatory in reviewing it
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tort claims
Electronic Data Involved: Computerized data and superceded and preliminary drafts of expert
Key Insight: Finding no bad faith in defendant’s failure to preserve email since defendants simply persevered in their normal document retention practices, court nonetheless ruled that plaintiff would be allowed to prove the facts reflecting the non-retention of email and argue to the trier of fact that this destruction of evidence, in addition to other proof offered at trial, warranted certain inferences
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Plaintiff’s failure to preserve computer printouts and telephone lists loaded onto Palm Pilot did not warrant an adverse inference instruction, but did warrant monetary sanctions of $28,271.75 to be paid by party (not his attorney) to compensate the victim for attorneys’ fees and expenses arising both from additional discovery required to locate equivalent information by alternative means and from the motion practice necessitated by the spoliation
Nature of Case: Action seeking monetary damages and specific performance of stock option agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy material loaded onto Palm Pilot
Key Insight: Defendant’s skepticism that plaintiff had not produced copies of all responsive documents did not entitle defendant to conduct physical inspection of plaintiff’s hard drives
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and quantum meruit claim
Electronic Data Involved: Computer and disc drives
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to allow experts to perform physical inspection of their computer equipment and files, since full disclosure of email had been provided by defendants and inspection was likely to be unduly burdensome
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer equipment and files
Key Insight: Declining to determine whether its May 13, 2003 order contemplated the production of deleted files, court overruled defendant’s objections to special master’s order denying request for production of deleted files, finding that defendant’s request was untimely and that “the process of recovering deleted files at this late stage of litigation would be an undue burden on Medtronic and is based, the court’s opinion, on mere speculation that relevant deleted files could be recovered”
Nature of Case: Intellectual property litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted files
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.