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: Where defendant subpoenaed third parties seeking production of communications between defendant and those third parties from years prior, and where defendant could not produce those communications itself, court found the information relevant and denied third parties? motion to quash but, noting that defendant?s insufficient document retention policies resulted in the need to subpoena the information, court ordered defendant to bear the costs of production
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Key Insight: Denying third-party corporation?s motion to quash a subpoena, court rejected corporation?s claims of undue burden where the discovery sought was relevant to the foreign litigation and where the support for claims of burden was conclusory and failed to sufficiently identify the basis for the corporation?s objection or ?connect a dollar amount to the particular tasks that would be necessary to provide the requested information? and thus, the court was ?effectively prevented from making a meaningful determination as to whether the financial costs is unreasonable?
Nature of Case: Foreign litigation claiming $1.5 billion in damages arising from “Put Option Agreement”
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Upon defendant?s motion to compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), court ordered plaintiff to supplement its discovery to specifically identify sources of ESI claimed to be ?not reasonably accessible? and to provide the anticipated costs and efforts involved in retrieving that ESI
Nature of Case: Defective design of air conditioner components leading to recall
Electronic Data Involved: Not reasonably accessible ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff ?contumaciously defied discovery orders? by deleting materials from her hard drive that she had been directed to produce, trial court ?improvidently exercised its discretion? by failing to dismiss all of plaintiff?s claims; appellate court reversed and entered order dismissing plaintiff?s remaining claims
Nature of Case: Personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: ESI on hard drive
Key Insight: Where defendant alleged plaintiff had violated the protective order by using information contained on a hard drive and backup tapes provided by a third party to initiate additional lawsuits, court denied defendant?s motion to dismiss absent evidence of prejudice but granted third party?s motion for protective order preventing such use going forward; for plaintiff?s failure to supplement discovery, court denied motion for dismissal but gave permission for defendant?s expert to supplement report based on newly-obtained information
Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Electronic Data Involved: ESI contained on hard drive, backup tapes
Key Insight: Court declined to find spoliation had occurred as to specific emails believed by plaintiff to have been withheld or destroyed by defendant absent sufficient evidence but, relying on defendant?s claims of work-product immunity as to a document created in Feb. 2006, found that defendant anticipated litigation as of that time and imposed an adverse inference as to any documents systematically destroyed after that date pursuant to defendant?s policy of maintaining electronic documents for only one month
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where State refused to produce images to be used against defendant in court and, to avoid being subject to subpoena, gave possession of the evidence to the federal government who was not subject to subpoena, the appellate court granted defendant?s petition for discretionary review, stayed the trial court?s proceedings, and held that the Adam Walsh Act (a federal statue restricting copying and distribution of image of child pornography in federal court proceedings) does not preempt state law requiring full disclosure of the State?s evidence; the case was remanded for further proceedings
Nature of Case: Sex offenses against minors
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, copies of electronic images
Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged spoliation of surveillance video where in the case of an incident the surveillance video was to be copied from the hard drive it was stored on to a CD, but where there was insufficient evidence that such a CD was ever made or existed, and where plaintiff failed to contact defendant regarding her lawsuit until 5 months had passed – a period of time far longer than the video would have been preserved on the hard drive in the usual course of business
Nature of Case: Personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.