Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to allow plaintiff to serve subpoenas on certain Internet Service Providers to obtain information identifying the Doe Defendants so that plaintiff could complete service of process
Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Name of ISP subscriber
Key Insight: Court held transcript of chat cut and pasted into word document in its entirety was properly authenticated where the officer testified that the transcript was a ?true and accurate and full and complete copy of the exact chat [he] had with the defendant?; Best Evidence Rule was satisfied where ?any printout or other output readable by sight shown to reflect the date accurately is an ?original?? in the context of information stored in a computer and where there was no evidence that the original messages, which were removed from the computer when the instant message program was removed, were erased in bad faith
Nature of Case: Solicitation of a minor
Electronic Data Involved: Printed transcripts of instant messages
Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order where plaintiff?s request for inspection of defendants? hard drives was found ?per se overbroad and unduly burdensome when balanced against the need cited? and where plaintiff failed to explain whether a less intrusive option had been attempted, ?as per Rule 34?; despite granting the motion, court noted willingness to entertain a motion to inspect a particular hard drive if provided with a protocol for such inspection indicating a method to protect the non-responsive data
Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference in favor of defendant where plaintiff failed to preserve backup tapes which ?may have contained emails with evidence to support defendants? claims?, despite a duty to do so
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel defendants to sign releases authorizing ISPs to disclose ?all account information, electronic data, information and emails associated with numerous internet website domains? where ?given the nature of the transactions? at issue, such information would be likely to involve the confidential matters of numerous third parties and where the court was unable to protect those parties from ?unauthorized disclosure of their confidential records and information?; court analysis included finding that defendants had control of the electronic information in the custody of the ISPs ?because, according to federal statute, they may consent to grant access to their information?
Electronic Data Involved: All account information, electronic data, information and emails associated with numerous internet website domains
Key Insight: Court upheld grant of adverse inference for intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a hard drive ordered to be produced for inspection and noted that because the destruction was intentional or grossly negligent, the court?s inference as to the erased emails? relevance was proper
Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive
Key Insight: Where plaintiff had previously produced a particular two page letter in prior litigation but was unaware of that production because it was not used in any deposition or pleading in that case, and where plaintiff?s counsel agreed, in subsequent litigation, to produce those documents that were previously produced in the prior litigation, which included the letter, and did not conduct a privilege review because of the belief that such a review had been conducted before production in the prior litigation, the court found that plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure and therefore waived privileged and reasoned, in part, that ?[m]erely asserting that prior counsel inadvertently disclosed the letter does not meet the burden of proof,? citing Plaintiff?s failure to describe the circumstances surrounding the letter?s original production or any steps to prevent the disclosure
Electronic Data Involved: two page letter
Key Insight: Court granted Motion for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery for the purpose of discovering the identities of defendants, including their true name, address, phone number, etc. because good cause existed for such discovery where identification of the defendants was necessary for the case to progress; court ordered subpoenaed ISPs to notify the subscribers in question to provide an opportunity to quash, but ordered ongoing preservation of the subpoenaed information until resolution of any such motion
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Name of ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of ESI from the computer of plaintiff?s supervisor where plaintiff was aware of the existence of the computer and its email capabilities prior to filing suit but nonetheless agreed in the scheduling order that no electronic discovery would be required and thus could not show ?good cause? to amend the order
Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from hard drive of plaintiff’s supervisor
Key Insight: Court found defendants were ?at least? grossly negligent for failing to issue a written litigation hold and ordered defendants to pay the costs of plaintiff?s motion to compel as well as a $25,000 fine; in devising its sanction, the court considered defendants other conduct, including defendants? deficient search for responsive documents, defense counsel?s lack of meaningful supervision in the discovery process, and defendants? decision to withhold certain documents deemed insufficiently important, among other things
Nature of Case: Lanham Act/ mislabeled ingredients
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.