Key Insight: Court found plaintiff had shown good cause and granted motion to serve expedited discovery on the identified Internet Service Providers of Does 1-21 for the purpose of learning the identity of the Does for service
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers
Key Insight: For the City of Detroit?s bad faith spoliation of emails, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions but imposed a permissive adverse inference; for the City?s and its attorneys? ?bad faith disregard of their discovery obligations and the orders of this Court? which led to the destruction of evidence (including failing to disseminate a legal hold notice and Corporation Counsel?s ?utter delinquen[ce] in his duty to see that his clients complied with Judge Rosen?s orders?), the court ordered the city and Corporation Counsel to split plaintiffs? reasonable fees and costs; in its analysis related to an adverse inference, the court adopted the analysis of Forest Labs. Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009), which held that an adverse inference may be appropriate in some cases involving the negligent destruction of evidence (as opposed to bad faith, which some courts have held is necessary)
Nature of Case: Minor son of murder victim alleged that defendants conducted lax investigation and deliberately ignored or actively concealed material evidence
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Where plaintiff altered and deleted emails and discarded potentially relevant hard drives the court undertook a substantial analysis of the relevant legal standards surrounding spoliation and, upon consideration of those standards, imposed two monetary sanctions requiring the plaintiff to pay for the reasonable costs and fees arising from his failure to produce a hard drive as he had been directed to do by the court and to pay for Boeing?s costs ?directly connected with the investigation and discovery of the altered emails?; the court also dismissed, with prejudice, plaintiff?s claim of retaliation
Nature of Case: Violations of False Claims Act
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives
Key Insight: Upon reconsideration of prior order awarding sanctions against defendants, court found that additional evidence indicated culpability on the part of defense counsel that justified joint and several liability for sanctions; defendants? discovery violations included willful failure to produce certain documents and the destruction of other ESI; counsels? discovery failures included defense counsels? failure to adequately communicate with opposing counsel resulting in court intervention and failure to comply with court orders; as sanction, court ordered defendants and counsel to pay specifically delineated portions of plaintiffs? attorneys? fees and costs
Nature of Case: trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: For defendant?s failure to preserve highly relevant surveillance footage in bad faith (as evidenced by the loss of three copies of the tape and the deliberate recording over of the master tape) which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the court ordered an adverse inference instruction that the information would have been unfavorable to defendant and precluded defendant from offering the testimony of witnesses who viewed the footage prior to its loss as to what the footage depicted
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination/violation of Americans with Disabilities Act
Electronic Data Involved: Original and three copies of relevant surveillance footage
Key Insight: Although the allegedly spoliated information was likely relevant, court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff?s pre-litigation letter expressing dissatisfaction with defendant?s work did not put defendants on notice that the at-issue data was relevant and should be preserved and where there was no evidence that defendant intended to destroy the data but rather that the information was lost because the computer on which it was stored did not save the information and instead deleted it before it began a new job; court also noted that defendants had provided the requested information upon plaintiff?s request prior to filing of litigation
Nature of Case: Breach of Contract
Electronic Data Involved: WinOPS data
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
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.