Key Insight: District court rejected plaintiff’s appeal of magistrate judge’s order denying sanctions, as there was no evidence that defendants destroyed evidence or inadequately investigated for ESI; fact that evidence was not produced “in and of itself is not a basis for [the court] to conclude that there was unlawful destruction or spoliation”
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Mandatory adverse inference instruction was not warranted by former Chairman’s admitted deletion of e-mails after his retirement despite written document preservation instruction from corporate counsel at the outset of litigation, as defendants did not have requisite culpable state of mind and there was insufficient evidence of relevance or prejudice; instead, permissive adverse inference instruction was appropriate
Nature of Case: Securities class action
Electronic Data Involved: E-mails of defendant Celestica’s former Chairman of the Board
Key Insight: Court ordered dismissal of Plaintiff?s claims with prejudice and payment of Defendant?s attorney?s fees and costs incurred for numerous discovery motions and forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s electronic devices for Plaintiff?s bad faith spoliation including defiance of the court?s discovery orders by refusing to submit certain devices and accounts for forensic inspection and by refusing to produce certain information and the destruction of ESI by wiping both his iPhone and Blackberry device, among other things
Nature of Case: Employment litigation (harassment, retaliation)
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic inspection of devices (iPhone, Blackberry)and accounts
Key Insight: Defendant failed to preserve data in its control (an issue it hotly contested) when it sold certain assets of its wholly owned subsidiary, including the database/?system? that contained the at issue data; court found failure to preserve was willful and in bad faith and that plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss; where a non-party who works with defendant indicated that it had information from the at issue system but that the information was not ?readable? and that it would be expensive to extract and convert it, the court ordered defendant to bear the cost of determining whether the system was searchable and to pay plaintiff his attorneys fees for the motion for sanctions
Nature of Case: Class action re: violation of Truth in Lending Act
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Forensic examination of defendants’ electronic devices was appropriate given nature of case and allegations against individual defendants; court identified particular devices to be examined and provided specific guidelines for the examination and review of ESI, but denied plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees since defendants’ objections were reasonable; court further ruled that costs associated with obtaining the information from the devices would be borne by plaintiff
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: ESI on defendant’s electronic devices
Key Insight: Where government had requested production in specific electronic formats (Database, Access or Excel) but company produced materials in PDF format that lacked requested detail and was not searchable across multiple documents, court found production insufficient and noted that the fact that company’s databases lacked certain functionality did not relieve company from responding to subpoenas with responsive information in usable, searchable format and directed company to produce responsive information “in a format that is reasonably usable, which includes searchable, just as its databases are presumably designed to respond to search queries”
Nature of Case: Investigation by Office of the Inspector General re whether company violated the False Claims Act; government petitioned for summary enforcement of OIG supboenas to Capitol Supply, Inc.
Electronic Data Involved: Sales data, country-of-origin information
Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of defendants’ computer hard drives, as record did not demonstrate that documents plaintiff sought were being unlawfully withheld by defendants and not available from plaintiff’s own information or other sources, and in failing to set out an appropriate protocol to govern the forensic imaging process and protect defendants’ confidential information and preserve any private or privileged information
Nature of Case: Patent infringement, false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of employment agreements
Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives
Key Insight: Appellate court upheld conviction for obstruction of justice based on deletion of email, where defendant admitted deleting email in response to being told about the execution of search warrants at a co-conspirator’s home and office, and there was evidence that defendant did more than simply delete emails but had also tampered with the drive from which the emails had been deleted
Nature of Case: Criminal case involving wire and mail fraud conspiracy and obstruction of justice convictions
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email
Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court ruled that under the special circumstances of the case and notwithstanding that it was not a party to the litigation, Arizona Department of Corrections had duty to preserve the missing evidence, its failure to do so was at least grossly negligent, evidence was plainly relevant and plaintiff was clearly prejudiced by its loss; court declined to impose case-terminating sanctions against individual defendants but would allow parties to present evidence and argument about the lost evidence and would instruct jury that ADC had a duty to preserve evidence, ADC did not preserve the evidence, and jurors may infer that lost evidence would have been favorable to plaintiff
Nature of Case: Inmate alleged correctional officers used excessive force
Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of event, photograph of plaintiff’s hand, and other documentary evidence
Key Insight: Ruling on petition for writ of mandamus, state appellate court found that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to compel: (1) production of plaintiff’s cell phone for forensic examination and data extraction (to retrieve stored and deleted photographs and videotapes depicting plaintiff subsequent to accident, stored and deleted text messages, emails and audio recordings referencing or reflecting plaintiff’s alleged depression, etc.) and (2) production of information, data, posts and conversations from plaintiff’s Facebook page, because the requests were not properly limited in time and scope, were overly broad and could have been more narrowly tailored, and constituted an unwarranted intrusion
Nature of Case: Personal injury claims stemming from motor vehicle accident
Electronic Data Involved: Data stored on plaintiff’s cell phone; and information, data, posts and conversations from plaintiff’s Facebook page
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.