Key Insight: Addressing question of existence of marital privilege as to messages sent and received on work computers, court found that employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in light of employer?s policy regarding email use and that emails were not protected
Electronic Data Involved: Potentially privileged emails
Key Insight: Addressing the requisite showing to establish undue burden in responding to discovery, the court identified ?several overarching principles to be considered:? 1) that a party must provide ?competent proof demonstrating the burden faced;? 2) that ?the fact that a party maintains its document in a manner than makes access difficult is not an excuse for refusing to produce relevant documents;? and 3) that the court must consider whether the ?claimed hardship is unreasonable in light of the benefits to be secured,? and upon review of the evidence presented, ordered plaintiff to respond to defendants? requests for production
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant negligently failed to preserve information that would have revealed whether a FedEx agent delivered packages to the address of the relevant accident on the day in question and where the presence of such a delivery person was disputed by FedEx, the court declined to grant default judgment but ordered an adverse inference establishing that a FedEx agent had delivered a package to the relevant address on the date of the accident
Nature of Case: Injury resulting from being hit by delivery handtruck loaded with boxes
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Based upon affidavits of defendant?s General Counsel and Litigation Technology Project Manager identifying the burden of responding to plaintiff?s requests for production, including potentially searching 12,786 boxes of hardcopy and 12 terabytes of data, court denied motion to compel but ordered defendant to provide a supplemental response to plaintiff?s request after conducting less burdensome searches and encouraged cooperation to agree upon what those searches would entail; court also denied motion to compel additional searching for particular issues where defendant estimated the cost of search per gigabyte at between $100 and $300 with a total resulting cost of between $1.2 million and $3.6 million
Nature of Case: Dispute regarding proper payment pursuant to contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff demonstrated that (1) the Doe defendants are real people who may be sued in federal court; (2) it has unsuccessfully attempted to identify the Doe defendants prior to filing this motion; (3) its infringement and civil conspiracy claims against the Doe defendants could survive a motion to dismiss; and (4) there is a reasonable likelihood that service of the proposed subpoenas on the ISPs will lead to information identifying the Doe defendants, court granted motion for expedited discovery to allow plaintiffs to serve subpoenas seeking information to identify the unknown plaintiffs
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Information related to identity of Does 1-118
Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve subpoenas on identified ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Does 1-95 granted
Nature of Case: Coyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subsribers
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly spoliated emails and where, if the emails had existed, they would have been automatically deleted prior to the trigger of defendant?s duty to preserve and thus would not have been lost in bad faith; court?s analysis included discussion of trigger of duty to preserve and reasoned that meetings between accused professor and his department head and/or program director regarding alleged unwanted interactions with student did not trigger university?s duty to preserve because there was no evidence to suggest that either the department head or program director should have reasonably anticipated litigation at that time (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 for proposition that ?Merely because one or two employees contemplate the possibility that a fellow employee might sue does not generally impose a firm wide duty to-preserve.?)
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of documents related to defendant?s litigation hold/preservation efforts where the court found that GE was at fault for the loss of certain data beyond mere inadvertence or carelessness and that the evidence lost was both relevant and discoverable
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion for sanctions and ordered adverse inference for defendants? spoliation where defendants failed to suspend the automatic deletion function on their email which deleted both incoming and outgoing emails after three to four days and where defendants admitted to deleting relevant audio visual content from their server, court also ordered payment of attorney?s fees and costs for defendants? failure to adequately respond to the court?s order for particular information related to their preservation and collection efforts; court rejected assertions that UK Data Protection Act does not permit the retention of personal information and required deletion of emails where defendant offered no evidence that the deleted data contained personal information protected by statute and also rejected the position that the court lacked authority to order production pursuant to the Data Protection Act
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court upheld clawback agreement between the parties which held that inadvertent production would not result in waiver; where parties entered into 26(f) agreement regarding what metadata need be produced but where plaintiff moved to compel production of additional fields because those provided did not allow him to search effectively or identify the source of particular documents, the court entered into an extensive analysis of the ?form? and ?organization? requirements in Rule 34 and withheld ruling until defendant could provide evidence regarding the burden of providing an index that could allow identification of the source of each document
Nature of Case: State employment claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.