Key Insight: Identifying a difference between costs expended for converting a paper document into an electronic one and creating electronically searchable documents, the court denied defendant?s request for recovery of costs related to ?electronic records initial processing, Metadata extraction, [and] file conversion?
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Key Insight: District Court affirmed denial of plaintiff?s motion for an order compelling the production of ?econometric data? previously produced to the FTC, and the computer programs used to calculate it, because the data was of limited relevance, because the risk created by disclosure of the sensitive information outweighed the limited benefit to plaintiffs, and because the calculations for which the data was necessary had already been performed in another case and thus were available from an alternative source
Electronic Data Involved: Econometric data and computer programs
Key Insight: Briefly but comprehensively addressing a number of electronic discovery issues, court declined to shift discovery costs to the requesting party, declined to order defendants to bear the cost of changing the format of their responsive documents for production (unless such conversion was necessary to render the documents ?usable?), declined to order the production of all metadata and instead limited production to 12 fields of metadata proposed by plaintiffs, and ordered the production of spreadsheets and privilege logs in native format
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata
Key Insight: Where defendant produced responsive documents after the close of discovery and explained that he believed the documents had been previously produced by his prior employer based on his misunderstanding that all documents saved to his personal computer were also saved on the employer?s network (and thus collected from that source), the court reasoned that ?a trial on the merits of the case outweighs and prejudice to the plaintiff?, that the plaintiff had had more than a month to complete the review of the newly produced documents, and that defendant had fulfilled his obligation to supplement discovery and denied defendant?s motion to exclude plaintiff?s use of the documents; court allowed defendant to depose plaintiff for an additional two hours
Electronic Data Involved: Late produced ESI
Key Insight: Finding that defendant?s delay in producing a privilege log and the insufficiency of the entries therein supported a finding of waiver, court nonetheless declined to impose the ?extreme sanction? of waiver as to the actual privileged communications but held that defendants had failed to establish that the attached ?preexisting business records? were privileged or protected and ordered the them produced
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and other claims
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Concluding that discovery requests were unduly intrusive and burdensome, court vacated grant of permission to obtain discovery for use in Canadian litigation and quashed the resulting subpoena because responding to the subpoena would require substantial effort on the part of a non-party because of the passage of time, because relevant data was not readily available from a database, as anticipated, due to the organizational structure of the database, and because a privilege review requiring subs6tantial resources would likely need to be undertaken
Nature of Case: Canadian litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from database
Key Insight: Where government entities were not required to prepare any record not already possessed or maintained by such an entity in response to a FOIL request and where state agency argued a response to petitioner?s request would require such preparation to protect government employee?s social security numbers, court agreed with agency and denied petitioners? requests as stated but ordered production of data extracted using petitioners? suggested method, despite acknowledgement of inferiority of resulting information, where such extraction would substantially accomplish petitioners? objectives but maintain state employees? privacy protection
Nature of Case: FOIL request
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata, databases
Key Insight: Upon finding that because of the ?relative inaccessibility of the information sought?responding to the request would be overly burdensome? where defendant was unable to query its database for the information requested and upon finding that the information sought would not satisfy plaintiff?s purpose without additional information, court found that defendant had established that ?the significance of the discovery to the issues in the present case is substantially outweighed by the burden? and granted defendant?s motion for a protective order
Nature of Case: Wrongful denial of claim for disability benefits
Electronic Data Involved: Database contents
Key Insight: Where parties failed to reach agreement regarding inspection protocol for defendant?s relevant database, court stepped in and ordered plaintiff?s expert to image relevant servers and PCs and to search those systems for relevant documents; having generally declined to order searching of defendant?s exchange servers absent more than conclusory assertions of a deficient production, court found compelling justification for a comparative search of certain exchange servers where, in light of a previous server crash and subsequent restoration of the content, questions arose regarding the identification of all responsive emails
Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information
Electronic Data Involved: Database, emails, ESI
Key Insight: Where defendants admitted destroying relevant radio communications but argued that such destruction was not sanctionable because it unintentionally occurred as the result of a routine operation of the police communication systems and because the information destroyed was of minimal relevance, court found that defendants were under an obligation to preserve and had (at least) negligently destroyed the radio communications, but declined to order an adverse inference because plaintiff?s proffer of evidence regarding the communications? relevance and the proper inference from their destruction was ?too speculative?
Nature of Case: ? 1983 Action against D.C. police for constitutional violations
Electronic Data Involved: Radio communications (“radio runs”)
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.