Key Insight: Where murder victim sent text message to son stating that defendant was threatening to kill her and that she was scared and 6 minutes later called 911 to report that defendant was stabbing her, court did not err in allowing text message to son into evidence under the ?spontaneous utterance? exception to the hearsay rule
Nature of Case: Murder
Electronic Data Involved: Text message
Key Insight: Where Defendant was unable to produce the original version of a particularly relevant document in native format and claimed the loss resulted from the automatic deletion of the original version pursuant to the company?s document retention policy, the court declined to impose sanctions reasoning that a later version of the document was provided to Defendant?s legal department, that it was ?not obvious? that prior versions needed to be preserved and that by the time Plaintiff filed his lawsuit following termination, a year had passed and the document would have been destroyed under the retention policy; the court further reasoned:? While this destruction still occurred during the litigation hold, the fact that Winn Dixie?s normal retention policy called for the document?s destruction undermines a finding of bad faith because Winn?Dixie?s failure to adjust the document retention system to comply with the litigation hold signified an omission, and not a commission. In other words, Winn?Dixie?s failure to retain the electronic document was not the result of a directed action to delete the document but rather a failure to turn off the automatic deletion mechanism. Such action, at best, amounts to negligence and does not rise to the level of bad faith.?
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Original version of relevant ESI
Key Insight: In a criminal matter, the court said that Twitter messages could be authenticated under Indiana Rules of Evidence Rule 901(b) by, for example, ?(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge? and by ?(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like? and these examples were satisfied where a witness testified that she had communicated with the defendant on Twitter via the account in question and testified that the account contained both pictures of the defendant and references to activities that were sufficient to indicate that the posts had been authored by the defendant.
Nature of Case: Criminal
Electronic Data Involved: Twitter
Key Insight: Court addressed parties? disagreement regarding a search and production protocol and considering three options presented by Plaintiff (1) ?sampling and iterative refinement?; 2) a quick peek at all documents to designate a limited number for production; or 3) production of all documents with search hits subject to a clawback agreement) and defendant?s resistance based in proportionality, reasoned that ?[g]iven that there are 1,047 opt-in plaintiffs, ?potentially hundreds more as class members? in the four states . . . and a possible verdict in eight or nine digits if plaintiffs are successful, defendant?s proportionality argument is unavailing?; court ordered defendant to search files of 8 custodians using its own proposed terms (thus creating a presumption of relevancy) and further ordered that defendant could remove documents from production ?only if they are clearly and undeniably irrelevant? or privileged
Nature of Case: Class action
Electronic Data Involved: ESi
Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding incorporation of ?randomized qualitative sampling? to determine the effectiveness of search terms into their Search Term Protocol because Defendant objected to Plaintiffs? access to non-responsive, irrelevant documents, court approved its use, arguing that it was intended to prevent the production of irrelevant information; in recognition of Defendants? concerns, court noted Plaintiff?s agreement that Defendant ?may review the random qualitative sample and remove any irrelevant document(s) from the sample for any reason, provided they replace the document(s) with an equal number of randomly generated document(s)?, ordered that the irrelevant documents and any attorney notes regarding the sample be destroyed within a time specified, and ordered that access to the random sample would be limited as specified
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: ESI (search terms at issue)
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought to shift the costs of ?preparing emails for production? (estimated to be $16,325), the court reasoned that Plaintiff assumed the responsibility for producing relevant documents by initiating the litigation, that cost shifting is ?appropriate ?only when electronic data is relatively inaccessible?? (citing Zubulake v. Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)), that ?[d]ata may be described as ?inaccessible? due to an undue cost or burden associated with accessing the data,? and concluded that the ?emails in this case [were] readily available? and that the high costs of production were not associated with ?accessing or delivering the emails? but rather with counsel?s review for privilege which was more like attorney?s fees and thus the court denied the motion
Nature of Case: Personal Injury
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought forensic examination of email accounts not searched by Defendants, the court acknowledged the ?expense and difficulty? of such examinations and reasoned that ?mere skepticism? that relevant information has not been produced is insufficient to warrant such drastic measures and thus denied the request; court reasoned Defendant had failed to reveal the search terms utilized to identify responsive documents in searches of three other email accounts and that Plaintiffs had established the relevancy of all of the requested accounts and ordered the parties to meet and confer as to an appropriate search methodology for all accounts
Nature of Case: Insurance litigation: bad faith
Electronic Data Involved: Forensic examination of email accounts
Key Insight: On appeal, Supreme Court found that lower court?s failure to order default judgment for Defendant?s spoliation of potentially relevant surveillance video despite a request for preservation and the sophistication and experience to understand the need to preserve was not an abuse of discretion but did find that the failure to award a meaningful sanction was an abuse of discretion where the instruction that Defendant would not be allowed to discuss the surveillance video?which it claimed showed no evidence of the at-issue accident?unless Plaintiff brought it up put the Plaintiff in a bind such that if he brought up the destruction of the video, Defendant could argue it contained nothing, and thus take advantage of the video?s unavailability to rebut their claim; the case was remanded for a new trial
Nature of Case: Work-related injury
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video
Key Insight: Addressing several disputes, court concluded that parties having agreed on an ESI production ?must only comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii)? and that the question was therefore whether the defendant ?produced its ESI in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. The rule clearly requires one or the other, but not both.?; where defendant produced majority of its documents in a reasonably usable form (TIFF), court declined to compel production of additional metadata
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel documents where Defendant rejected Plaintiffs? proposed search terms and protocols, but did not use search terms and protocols it deemed reasonable to produce those documents that were readily accessible and admittedly relevant. Court also refused to limit the locations Defendant was required to search for relevant documents saying, ?The City is not excused from conducting a reasonable search for all non-privileged responsive documents in City?s custody and control, regardless of location.?
Nature of Case: Sexual Harassment
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.