Key Insight: Conducting its cost-shifting analysis ?under the Zubulake standard,? court reasoned that defendants ?failed to show that cost-shifting is appropriate because they did not establish that the production at issue was unduly burdensome or expensive, that is, that the data were kept in an inaccessible format.?
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order to limit unduly burdensome discovery and preservation demands where Defendant established the significant burden associated with preserving the multiple repositories of potentially relevant information covering 89 potential custodians, including thousands of back-up tapes, and where the court found that the allegations of the complaint did not justify the broad timeframe for discovery sought
Nature of Case: Qui Tam action alleging violations of anti-kickback statute and retaliation against Relators
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Noting that ?courts have allowed parties to recover the costs of converting paper documents into electronic files where responsive discovery documents were produced in electronic format,? the court found that defendants could recover $68,829.60 and $24,102.39 respectively ?for creating electronic images of documents responsive to Relator?s discovery requests?
Nature of Case: False Claims Act
Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs for ediscovery
Key Insight: Court approved recovery of costs related to making one set of copies of the at issue documents, including bates labeling , but found that the city had ?not met its burden of establishing that the additional expenses, including scanning, OCR, and the production of a master DVD, were reasonably necessary under ? 1920(4)?
Nature of Case: Unlawful retaliation under Title VII
Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs
Key Insight: Magistrate judge addressed accusations of spoliation and violation of court orders and found that monetary sanctions were appropriate for defendants? spoliation of emails which were deleted (as evidenced by forensic investigation) after the duty of preservation arose but declined to find spoliation had occurred as to defendants? laptops or external storage devices where Plaintiff presented little more than evidence of Defendants? lack of credibility; magistrate judge imposed sanctions for violation of court?s orders where Defendants made unilateral decisions not to produce certain electronic devices but gave numerous assurances that everything had been produced; magistrate judge found Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defendants? contempt of the court?s discovery orders and preliminary injunction order and certified certain underlying facts for consideration by the District Court
Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Copyright Act, PA Wiretap Act, state trade secret law, duty of loyalty
Electronic Data Involved: Email, storage devices (iPad, iPhone, thumb drives), personal computers
Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s request for forensic examinations of certain of Defendant?s computers, despite Defendant?s failure to produce internal communications regarding the allegedly infringing jewelry designs where, despite acknowledging Plaintiff?s suspicions, there was no concrete evidence of ?concealment, destruction of evidence, or failure to preserve documents and information? and where Plaintiff was able to explore its suspicions through other ?written and oral discovery tools?
Nature of Case: Copyright and Trademark infringement and unfair competition
Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI
Key Insight: Magistrate judge found that defendant had waived attorney-client privilege as to privileged documents provided to testifying expert for use in preparing his expert report, given that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires disclosure of ?the facts or data considered by the witness in forming [his/her opinion(s)],? and expert testified, under oath, that he reviewed the documents he was provided; magistrate judge further ruled that other privileged documents inadvertently produced by defendant were not subject to waiver as parties’ agreed protective order contained strict time line and process for filing motions to challenge claims of privilege after an inadvertent disclosure, and plaintiff did not follow the process
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents
Key Insight: Absent evidence that the failure to preserve prior versions of relevant documents was the result of a ?culpable state of mind,? the court declined to impose spoliation sanctions
Key Insight: Plaintiff sought production of audio recordings which Defendants initially indicated were available. Upon being ordered to produce certain information regarding those recordings, Defendants indicated they were unable to locate them. Following Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the recordings were discovered in a closet, but Defendants argued it would be unduly burdensome to restore and listen to the recordings and that production should not be required. Upon Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the court found that Defendants had willfully violated the court?s orders and prejudiced the Plaintiff. Thus, the court ordered Defendants to produce the recordings at their expense and to bear the costs of additional depositions to be taken by the Plaintiff. The court also ordered Defendants and counsel to bear Plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys fees in equal proportion.
Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of phone calls
Key Insight: District court adopted in its entirety the recommendation of the magistrate judge that Plaintiff?s amended complaint be dismissed and that her answer to defendants? counterclaims be stricken as a sanction for willful and bad faith spoliation where Plaintiff gave her relevant computers to her brother who then took them to Indonesia where he lived and where this spoliation resulted in severe prejudice to defendants; the opinion also upheld a prior order of the magistrate imposing sanctions in the form of findings detrimental to the plaintiff for ?ongoing and repetitive violations of discovery obligations?; as to both the recommendation adopted and the order upheld, the court granted defendant?s request for attorneys fees
Nature of Case: Alleged violation of restrictive covenant with prior employer
Electronic Data Involved: Two computers
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.