Key Insight: Court declined to consider printouts allegedly from the Internet Archive?s Wayback Machine where plaintiff failed to properly authenticate them by providing an affidavit from an employee of the Internet Archive to verify the pages
Nature of Case: Trademark Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Print outs from Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine
Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve relevant computers during its consolidation of operations and failed to preserve data during conversion of it?s IT network, the district court overruled defendant?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding that the spoliation was ?more than grossly negligent? and the imposition of an adverse inference but sustained defendant?s objections ?to the extent that the finding that the spoliation was more than grossly negligent [was] based on defendant?s limited production of emails, missing personnel record, and untimeliness in participating in discovery ? actions that ?do not indicated willful or intentional spoliation of evidence?
Electronic Data Involved: Computers/hard drives, ESI
Key Insight: Where parties could not reach agreement regarding parameters of search protocol, court ordered defendant to utilize search terms proposed by plaintiff but declined to order search of email at the present time, established the appropriate date range, and ordered defendants to produce ?exculpatory information?, i.e., ?anything that the College … believes [plaintiff] could reasonably use or could reasonably lead to admissible evidence?; court declined to order defendant to produce the files identified as a result of the search and ordered instead the production of a report of the results and for the parties to confer regarding the results
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for the destruction of plaintiff?s wife?s (a non-party) camera and memory card and plaintiff?s resulting inability to provide the ?digital files? created when the relevant photographs were taken where ?the camera and memory stick [did] not appear to have ever been within plaintiff?s control? and where ?it [did] not appear that the camera and memory stick were suppressed or withheld, but rather both were destroyed in an accident? and thus the elements necessary for an adverse inference were not met
Nature of Case: Product liability
Electronic Data Involved: Digital files related to photographs alleged to be relevant to “the condition of the seatlbelt”
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for a myriad of alleged violations, including failure to preserve emails and failure to adequately search for responsive ESI, where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of such violations and where the court found defendant?s search was reasonable; court ordered defendant to show cause why it failed to produce emails from certain supervisors in response to the court?s prior order where plaintiff offered evidence that such emails existed
Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: In an opinion addressing a number of discovery issues, the court declined to compel production of email in native format where defendant provided a ?reasonable explanation? for why it chose to produce in hard copy, namely, because ?they could more easily be reviewed for responsiveness and privilege?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions against remaining defendant where defendant was not responsible for the destruction of the relevant servers and the district court thus ?balanced the lack of any assertion of wrongdoing by [defendant] with the harm caused to [plaintiff?s] claims? and where Ohio law provided a remedy for a party injured by another party?s spoliation of evidence, namely a claim for the tort of spoliation (which plaintiff apparently asserted against the actual spoliating party)
Nature of Case: Copyright/trade secret infringement, intentional spoliation
Electronic Data Involved: Servers containing relevant ESI
Key Insight: Finding ?there [was] no evidence that the electronic data was ever created, much less?discarded?, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where defendant presented evidence that the relevant GPS system had to be activated in order to record data and that the system was not activated on the date of the accident, and where no regulation or law required the GPS be activated or recording
Nature of Case: Personal Injury
Electronic Data Involved: GPS data
Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations
Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy
Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery
Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication
Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.