Key Insight: Where plaintiff offered printouts of defamatory statements from website for the limited purpose of proving the statements appeared on the worldwide web on the days that plaintiff personally saw the statements and printed them from the computer, testimony of plaintiff of his personal knowledge of the content was sufficient to authenticate the documents
Nature of Case: Defamation
Electronic Data Involved: Printout of website
Key Insight: Where trial court precluded plaintiff from presenting evidence of a court order requiring defendant to preserve the relevant hard drive but expressly allowed the presentation of evidence concerning the destruction of the hard drive and deferred ruling on the whether to give an adverse inference instruction, and where plaintiff failed to present evidence of defendant?s intentional destruction of the hard drive, a necessary element when seeking an adverse inference, court of appeals ruled trial court?s preclusion of evidence of the order was error, but that the error was harmless, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive
Key Insight: In this long discovery opinion, court conducted waiver analysis pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502 of 8 documents and found that privilege had been waived as to each document for a myriad of reasons including: a finding that production was not inadvertent where the document(s) at issue had been produced (via FOIA or discovery response) on more than one occasion, defendants failure to adequately establish the measures taken to prevent the disclosure of the document(s) at issue, defendants failure to adequately object to the use of the document(s) at deposition, and defendants failure to request the return of the document(s) following discovery of their production or to take other measures to rectify disclosure
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and taking without just compensation
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails and hard copy
Key Insight: Where defendants attested to the adequacy of their search for discovery but could not describe their search efforts in detail, court noted its inability to ?say with certainty? whether defendants had fulfilled their discovery obligations and declined to rule on plaintiff?s third motion for sanctions ?until it [was] satisfied that the standards for preservation of electronic evidence?have been met or not met?; court ordered an investigation by a third party expert into ?whether defendants have met the standard for preservation of electronic evidence and disclosed all relevant evidence? with the cost to be borne by defendants
Key Insight: Where respondents argued that the exculpatory information sought was not ?reasonably available? under the relevant section of the case management order because several separate searches would be required in order to access all relevant databases, court stated that respondents appeared to misinterpret the relevant section to require production of ?easily available? information rather than ?reasonably available? information and granted petitioner?s motion to enforce the case management order and to allow searching of the relevant databases pursuant thereto
Electronic Data Involved: Database information accessed through Intellink search tool
Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop
Key Insight: Inadvertent production of privileged material by third party pursuant to subpoena waived defendants? privilege protection where third party?s disclosure was found to be tantamount to defendant?s disclosure because of the nature of their relationship and where defense counsel failed to take any steps to prevent the production of privileged materials despite being asked specifically if privilege issues were implicated in the production (to which he answered ?no?) and despite the low volume of materials produced; court noted that although there was no legal obligation for defendants to conduct a post-production review, ?had [they] done so, they might well have noticed the email at issue before Plaintiffs did, and the result in this case might have been different.?
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email
Key Insight: Defendant produced 138 emails whose attachments that were not linked, claiming it produced the documents in ?the normal course of business? and had no obligation to re-link the attachments. The court disagreed, stating that ?plaintiff must have the ability to identify which attachments belong to which emails.? Defendant argued it could not automatically re-link the emails with the attachments, but would have to ?employ a tedious manual process.? The court indicated Defendant ?cannot seek to preclude plaintiff from pursuing discovery based on a record-keeping system that is plainly inadequate.? The court found Defendant did not meet the burden to prove it would be unduly burdensome to re-link the message units and granted the motion (Defendant must provide data/software to allow Plaintiff to re-link or must re-produce the 138 emails with their attachments). The court denied the motion to compel Defendant to produce purchase and valuation documents, finding Defendant met its burden to show the requested information is not relevant to this case.
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Finding that Plaintiff ?took reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertent disclosures by having two attorneys review documents prior to production; that inadvertent production of one document out of over 2,000 documents produced does not weigh in favor of waiver; that the extent of the waiver was not great because the document had not worked its way into the fabric of the litigation; that Plaintiff took prompt measures to rectify the disclosure; and that the overriding interests of justice and fairness did not conclusively counsel in favor of waiver,? court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order preventing use of inadvertently disclosed email; court found ER 502 applicable, despite application of alternative five-factor test by magistrate, and determined that court?s application of ER 502 did not prevent review of magistrate?s ruling where ER 502 and five-factor test were sufficiently consistent (see FN 1)
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where evidence indicated high probability of spoliation by defendant including deleting data and running disk defragmenter and disk cleanup functions, among other things, but where evidence also indicated potential spoliation of ESI by plaintiff because of its failure to preserve the last accessed date of certain files, trial court gave adverse inference instruction to jury allowing finding of spoliation by either side and appellate court affirmed; appellate court also affirmed trial court?s denial of plaintiff?s request to access up to 250 hard drives for imaging upon finding the request ?too broad and burdensome? especially in light of trial court?s grant of access to plaintiff, upon narrowing its request, to back up tapes and specifically relevant hard drives
Nature of Case: Breach of confidentiality agreement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.