Key Insight: Magistrate Judge denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff?s possession of some emails that arguably should have been produced by defendant but were not was ?somewhat probative? but fell short of establishing that other relevant emails were created by defendant and then destroyed; upheld on appeal
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where defendant preserved 4 terabytes of electronically stored information and 744 boxes of paper documents to be reviewed for production, court cited Rule 26(b)(2)(B) for the proposition that burdensome discovery should be limited but found that plaintiff had good cause for requesting relevant information and ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop search terms or objective search criteria for identifying responsive ESI as well as to develop a search plan for the hard copy
Nature of Case: RICO
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy
Key Insight: Where, in a case arising from a fatal accident, the court determined that defendants? failure to preserve the tires of the involved truck and Qualcomm messages between the driver and the truck company was in bad faith and where that failure resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the court ordered that defendants? pleadings and defenses to liability be struck and, ?because defendants? misconduct led to the late discovery of a potential claim for punitive damages,? granted plaintiff leave to file an amended her complaint to add such a claim
Nature of Case: Hit and run
Electronic Data Involved: Qualcomm messages (“email type messages”)
Key Insight: Court upheld ruling that defendants did not destroy video evidence thereby warranting sanctions where plaintiff sought police recordings starting in 2004, but where no retention policy existed during that time period except officers? discretion to retain recording and many of the requested recordings had been recorded over long before plaintiffs? traffic stop; where the relevant officer was not asked to save tape of certain traffic stops until 2010; where plaintiffs? accusations of spoliation assumed that relevant video existed and ?overlooked the significant trouble Defendants have experienced in operating and maintaining their digital systems;? and where defendants had no control over the fact that the systems hard drive recorded over old data
Nature of Case: Claims arising from traffic stop
Electronic Data Involved: Video
Key Insight: Court found duty to preserve arose upon defendant?s consultation with counsel regarding possible infringement on plaintiff?s patent but abated upon the parties? successful negotiation of licensing agreement; court found that defendant had no control and thus no obligation to preserve certain documents from an employee of a Hong-Kong based affiliate; regarding an email folder accidentally deleted following inadvertent ?exposure? to automated purge function, court declined to find the loss was a result of negligence and found that plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of information lost and declined to impose sanctions
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails
Key Insight: Where defendant failed to conduct a sufficient search for responsive information and where an important email was located only upon a forensic search of defendant?s computer system after plaintiff offered to bear the costs, court ordered that half of the costs of the search be shifted to defendant
Nature of Case: Breach of warranty and violations of certain state law proscriptions against consumer fraud in connection with sale of motorcoach
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to pay sanctions equal to ?reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred [by Plaintiffs] in bringing this motion? where defendants were ordered to provide a detailed explanation of their preservation and collection processes but instead submitted declarations which failed to answer basic questions, answered others with minimal information, and relied on conclusory statements; court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, despite the court?s ?serious concerns? about a certain custodian?s preservation and collection efforts, spoliation was not established, and as to other specific evidence for which the evidence of spoliation was not clear, ordered that if it had not previously been produced, defendants would be barred from its use
Nature of Case: Brach of contract and fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI
Key Insight: Court outlined possible ways to authenticate an email and found that the emails at issue were properly authenticated and admitted where some came from an account bearing the defendant?s name, where many were signed by the defendant, where some contained identifying information, including defendant?s social security number and telephone numbers and other personal facts, and where an investigator recalled that at least two of the email addresses contained in the at-issue emails had been used on the computer of the victim, with whom defendant was staying before her death; per the court, possible ways to authenticate an email include: by ?use of the email address, which many times contains the same of the sender;? by ?[t]he signature or name of the sender or recipient in the body of the email;? by evidence ?that an email is a timely response to an earlier message;? and by presentation of the ?contents of the email and other circumstances? which may show authorship
Nature of Case: Murder
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve expedited discovery on Doe #1?s Internet Service Provider seeking information sufficient to identify the Doe for service but severed Does 2-2099 from the case upon finding that they had been improperly joined
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for an order requiring plaintiff to allow defendant to copy the hard drives of her personal computing devices where the discovery sought was not relevant to any claims or defenses in the case, where defendant proffered no evidence of its suspicions that plaintiff stole proprietary information, and where defendant?s proposed protocol would result in ?needless accessing? of plaintiff?s personal information and would be unduly burdensome to the plaintiff; where plaintiff nonetheless indicated a willingness ?to partake in some kind of protocol to provide [defendant] with the information it seeks? and submitted her own proposed protocol, the court adopted it
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Contents of Plaintiff’s personal computing devices
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.