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
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered nothing more than speculation regarding defendants? alleged intentional or grossly negligent spoliation of metadata and where defendant asserted that before destroying the server at issue, the information thereon was migrated and no metadata was knowingly changed, the court declined ?to infer from the absence of metadata that such evidence would have been favorable to Plaintiff?s claims?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records of phone calls, metadata
Key Insight: Where defendants resisted production of electronically stored information and sought to shift the costs of such production to plaintiff by presenting affidavits and expert testimony regarding the expected cost of production which, in large part, was the result of defendants? lack of a data retrieval system for archived information and its failure to suspend archiving documents despite the commencement of related litigation in 2004, and where it was revealed that the expert testimony presented lacked sufficient foundation, the court held that defendants had acted in bad faith and could no longer be trusted and awarded plaintiffs? fees and costs in the amount of $42,978.43; affirmed on appeal
Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act
Electronic Data Involved: Archived ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant ?unilaterally deviated? from the parties? agreement to produce in TIFF format and argued that the cost of conversion was not justified because the documents were ?minimally responsive?, court upheld the agreement and ordered the defendant to re-produce 19,000 documents that had been produced in native format
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Addressing several discovery issues, court ordered plaintiff to undertake search of 13 custodians, despite objection that only one custodian was likely to maintain relevant records, where the paucity of documents produced from plaintiff?s championed custodian indicated the need for additional searching but, as to former employees records, etc. which plaintiff alleged were unavailable because the computers were wiped for use by other employees, court reasoned that ?a party obviously cannot produce documents that do not exist? and declined to compel their production; court denied defendants? request for dismissal but, because plaintiff?s opposition on many issues was ?substantially unjustified? granted the fees related to pursuing those requests
Nature of Case: Claims arising from loan made by plaintiff based on false representations by defendant
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Clarifying the nature of its order regarding costs, court stated that its prior order requiring plaintiff to deposit funds into the court registry sufficient to cover the third party?s anticipated costs of producing ESI specifically excluded attorney?s fees but did not preclude recovery of them, and ordered compliance with its prior order
Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.