Key Insight: Court imposed spoliation sanctions, including an adverse inference, for defendant?s deletion of a ?software library? despite a duty to preserve
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Software library
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought production of three versions of at-issue software but encountered repeated delays on the part of Defendants and where one Defendant eventually discovered that he was in fact in possession of (i.e., had preserved) the older version of the software that Plaintiffs requested but had failed to discover the information because he failed to make inquiry of ?others under his control,? including his law firm?s IT personnel, the court elected to impose ?the lesser sanction of taxing costs? and ordered that Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for its reasonable costs and expenses associated with its various motions to compel; Defendants were ordered to install a current copy of the software on a laptop provided by the Plaintiff, to provide Plaintiff with direct access to the customized version currently in use by the Defendant/law firm, and to produce to Plaintiff a copy of the recently discovered database backup containing the software as originally installed
Nature of Case: Claims that defendants “stole a series of [Plaintiff’s] software customizations” and incorporated them into their software
Electronic Data Involved: Versions of case management software (original, customized, and current)
Key Insight: Calling defendants collection efforts ?incomplete and somewhat haphazard? where defendant provided no instruction to its chosen custodians regarding the types of documents to search for, whether to check with subordinates, or how to search for documents, the court reopened discovery so that production could ?commence in accordance with the parties? joint ESI plan,? and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding search terms and an amended scheduling order; court considered proper logging of emails and ordered defendant to produce an amended privilege log that listed each privileged email contained in an email string separately
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email, misc. ESI
Key Insight: On appeal from sanctions order against Arab Bank, court found it did not have jurisdiction over the order for sanctions and dismissed the appeal; court also found Arab Bank was not entitled to a writ of mandamus vacating the sanctions order and the petition for a writ of mandamus was therefore denied
Nature of Case: Knowingly and purposefully aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorist organizations
Electronic Data Involved: Foreign banking information
Key Insight: Where Airline sought production of decedent?s son?s Facebook friends list for purposes of assessing the son?s Asperger?s disorder and his ability to socialize and communicate with others, court found the Airline?s argument of relevance unpersuasive in light of the ?ease with which ?friends? can be collected on Facebook? and further reasoned that the production of the other contents of the son?s account (which was provided by his mother – who was a party) was sufficient
Nature of Case: Airline crash
Electronic Data Involved: Facebook “friend list”
Key Insight: Failure to institute litigation hold, which resulted in automatic deletion of relevant e-mails as part of defendant’s system-wide upgrade, and defendant’s excessive delay in disclosing such facts, constituted gross negligence; magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions be granted and that trial court issue and adverse inference instruction regarding the destroyed e-mails and award plaintiff its costs in bringing the motion
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute
Electronic Data Involved: E-mail
Key Insight: Noting that it was undisputed that e-discovery costs were available as taxable costs under Section 1920(4), but that there was scant legal authority in the circuit and district giving litigants guidance in seeking those costs, court deducted one-half of defendants’ request for costs related to electronically processing, hosting, and producing documents in discovery as well as electronically processing both sides’ trial exhibits, and awarded defendants $3,454 in e-discovery costs
Nature of Case: Commercial litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI and trial exhibits
Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce subject videos or make his hard drive available for mirror imaging as required by court’s order, but plaintiff ultimately obtained the subject videos from Google, court denied plaintiff’s request for case-dispositive sanctions but would impose an adverse inference instruction in the form of a mandatory presumption in light of multiple warnings to defendant that sanctions would result if he did not produce the information and in light of other “violative and unmannered conduct” of defendant in the litigation
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Videos defendant posted to YouTube, instructional DVD and manual
Key Insight: Court evaluated various arguments offered by defendants and email account holders resisting production of requested information and found that defendants did not have standing to move to quash the subpoenas, account holder who was human rights lawyer and US citizen established prima facie case of infringement of her right to freely associate, and other account holders who were non-US citizens did not have First Amendment rights; court limited time frame of certain requests and also determined that, because disclosure of identifying and usage information for the accounts beyond counsel may pose a safety risk to the email account holders and/or their families, defendants were entitled to a protective order prohibiting plaintiff?s counsel from sharing such information beyond counsel of record and their employees
Nature of Case: Motion to quash subpoenas to Google and Yahoo! issued in libel action pending in N.D. Ala.
Electronic Data Involved: Subscriber and usage information associated with four email addresses
Key Insight: Considering competing ESI protocols, court approved FDIC?s protocol which included provision that Defendant would pay $.06 per page for documents selected for physical production after review in an electronic database citing, among other things, the fact that the FDIC had already spent $791,000 to locate and produce responsive information and relying on a line of cases ?which have held that a party responding to discovery requests is responsible for the initial costs of reviewing and preparing paper documents and ESI for inspection and copying, but is not responsible for paying copying costs for voluminous materials.?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.