Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish that the accused spoliator had custody and control of the allegedly spoliated audiotape and where the plaintiff was not prejudiced in light of his receipt of a transcript of the tape
Nature of Case: Witness intimidation, retaliation, defamation or false-light invasion of privacy
Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape
Key Insight: Where a computer analyst made a backup image of certain files on defendant?s computer and returned the laptop to defendant?s employer, who proceeded to look through the files, etc. before supplying the backup image and the laptop to the FBI, and where the FBI then made an image of the backup image and an image of the entire laptop, the court held that the image of the backup image, reflecting some of the contents of the laptop before the employer looked through the laptop?s files, could be admitted as proof of what the FBI obtained from the employer AND as evidence of some of the contents of the laptop (the backup image did not include the entire contents of the laptop); court held that FBI?s image of the whole laptop (taken after the employer had looked through the files, etc. and thus changed metadata, etc.) could be admitted as evidence of what was obtained by the FBI from the employer, but cold not be offered to prove the contents of the laptop while in defendant?s possession
Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Backup image and image of contents of laptop
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of database data in native format where the same information had been produced in PDF format, where there were no accusations of inconsistencies in the information provided, where neither party addressed the costs of the requested native production and where the native data sought could not be provided without also disclosing irrelevant confidential information
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Court held defendants in contempt for failing to preserve documents in compliance with a court order; reasoning that because documents had been destroyed, no monetary sanction would coerce their production, the court ordered that defendants pay the reasonable costs associated with the government having to bring and prosecute the motion
Nature of Case: SEC litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant indicated that the requested records were not readily searchable because the information sought was not tracked, that compliance with plaintiffs? request would require manual review of ?hundreds of thousands of claims,? that the claim files were not stored as searchable images, and that the cost of reviewing the claim files could eclipse $100,000, the court concluded that defendant had demonstrated undue burden and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel; court also indicated that plaintiffs could have pursued alternative avenues of discovery where defendant indicated that a third party maintained the information requested but failed to do so and that defendant should not be ?required to engage in labor and resource intensive discovery . . . merely because Plaintiff?s failed to subpoena a third-party . . . .?
Nature of Case: Suit arising from Defendant’s refusal to pay certain charges for services provided to insured
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendant to re-run searches using commonly used acronyms where defendant had already run search terms that had been agreed upon by the parties and plaintiff had ample opportunity to ask for the abbreviations to be used and where the court determined that he burden of re-searching outweighed the benefit; where plaintiff was willing to bear the cost of ?running the searches and conducting the review in their request,? however, court would permit further search of specified custodians for one specifically identified acronym
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: In three separate instances, court concluded plaintiff deliberately destroyed or failed to produce relevant electronic devices and documents; culpably contributed to the destruction of a relevant hard drive; and deliberately destroyed relevant financial information and ordered repayment of plaintiff?s attorneys? fees and costs related to the adjudication of their motions for sanctions and repayment of attorneys? fees and costs related to plaintiffs construction of evidence of relevant financial information, made much more difficult by defendant?s spoliation
Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract and related claims and cross claims related to theft and use of confidential information
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court granted motion to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1782 upon finding the subpoena was unduly burdensome because of the time and/or cost that would be required to retrieve the information requested from the non-profit organization?s server, particularly in light of the availability of the information from the organization?s publically available website, and where the request implicated the First Amendment rights of the organization?s members who were subject to a privacy policy that assured them that their private information would be protected
Nature of Case: Foreign prosecution involving claims of libel and slander
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, messages from online forum(s)(stored in Structured Query Language)
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and ordered production of confirmation the locations searched for responsive ESI; production of plaintiff?s backup policies and tracking records; production of plaintiff?s document retention policy; and production of a data map to show the age and location of data on plaintiff?s systems
Electronic Data Involved: Information related to plaintiff’s computer systems
Key Insight: Where pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy the form at issue was subject to retention until February 4, 2007, and where defendant provided notice of his claims on February 1, 2007, including his assertions of defendant?s negligence, court found destruction of the relevant form warranted an adverse inference establishing that defendant negligently loaded the trailer involved in the underlying accident
Nature of Case: Negligence
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.