Key Insight: Where defendant failed to explain why conversion and printing of all of plaintiff?s electronically produced discovery was necessary, court declined to allow defendant to recover those costs
Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to printing of ESI
Key Insight: Addressing issue of taxable costs related to electronic discovery, court allowed recovery of costs related to ?converting already selected files into a database,? bates stamping, conversion to searchable PDF, and storage of electronic data but denied recovery as to collecting documents and culling them for responsiveness
Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs related to ESI
Key Insight: Court acknowledged that the parties could have communicated better to resolve the issue, but granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel re-production of ESI in .tiff format with a summation load file (including metadata) where Plaintiff indicated issues with Defendant?s production but where Defendant failed to timely follow up and then voluntarily re-produced ESI but not in a format that included metadata; the court also noted the strong showing that the metadata would be useful in the case and Plaintiff?s willingness to substantially narrow the number of documents sought, thus reducing the burden of production
Electronic Data Involved: ESI with metadata
Key Insight: Circuit court found that ?producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information,? but also found that in the present case the District Court abused its discretion ?in ruling that, within its spoliation analysis, Bull intentionally withheld the original documents from UPS? and further abused its discretion when it imposed the sanction of dismissal with prejudice
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Copies of hardcopy doctor’s notes
Key Insight: Where video surveillance tape was destroyed in contravention of duty to preserve, the court nonetheless denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions (an adverse inference) where it determined that there was no prejudice to plaintiff because defendants identified the three officers/employees who processed plaintiff on the night of the allegedly wrongful arrest and because defendants conceded that the initial booking processes indicated that plaintiff was not the person sought by the relevant warrant
Nature of Case: Violation of civil rights (wrongful arrest) and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance
Key Insight: Addressing when litigation was reasonably anticipated by Complaint Counsel (responsible for issuing the relevant Civil Investigative Demand), the court reasoned that anticipation of litigation was not triggered upon issuance of a ?second request? in connection with an ongoing investigation where the results of such investigations must first be analyzed to determine if an enforcement action is warranted and where the majority of investigations do not result in litigation; court denied respondent?s Motion to Compel
Nature of Case: FTC Civil Investigation
Electronic Data Involved: Relevant “communications”
Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes
Nature of Case: False Claims Act
Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs discovered, late in the discovery time period, that defendant?s database production was incomplete but defendant claimed plaintiffs were merely using the wrong query?a query that defendant had not yet produced?the court ordered that defendant produce the relevant query and left open plaintiffs? option to re-file its motion to compel production of additional data if, upon conducting its analysis with the proper query, it nonetheless determined (and could successfully show) that relevant data was missing
Nature of Case: Civil rights claims related to overdetention and strip searching of inmates
Electronic Data Involved: Database content, relevant database query
Key Insight: For intentional spoliation resulting in irreparable prejudice, including a ?discernible pattern? of efforts to deprive Plaintiffs of relevant financial information contained on the computer of Plaintiff?s outside accountant and the failure to preserve other data, the court ordered that plaintiff?s claims were dismissed with prejudice
Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Addressing the proper logging of privileged emails, the court adopted the position ?for which there is overwhelming support? (as cited in the opinion) ?that each email in an email string must be listed separately so that the court (and the opposing party) may make an attorney-client privilege determination with regard to each email in the string.?
Nature of Case: violations of False Claims Act
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.