Key Insight: Where, in response to request for documents indicating an effort to find work, defendant produced a list of emails and screen shots from his computer, but not the emails themselves, court found defendants response inadequate and ordered production of all relevant documents in his possession
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Where defendants failed to request production of a photograph taken by cell phone in electronic format and later contested plaintiff?s format of production, court denied defendants? motion to compel production and inspection upon noting defendants? failure to contest the photos authenticity or to show that viewing the original would provide information not already in their possession and upon noting Rule 34?s instruction that a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form
Electronic Data Involved: Photograph taken with cellular phone
Key Insight: Where the court interpreted defendant?s response to plaintiff?s second motion to compel to mean that defendant had complied with its preservation obligations and may produce additional materials and explicitly required defendant to immediately notify the court if that interpretation was not accurate ? and where that interpretation was not accurate but was not corrected by defendant – court granted plaintiff?s third motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all ESI and other responsive documents with an affidavit describing the steps taken to ensure such production and warned defendant that if ?counsel makes this kind of mistake again? the court would impose sanctions
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Emails sent to co-workers to recruit them as co-plaintiffs not protected by the work product doctrine where plaintiff merely assumed co-workers would keep his communications secret but where court found that sending emails to employees of a corporation increased the likelihood that the material would reach others within the corporation and thus ruled that plaintiff forfeited the protection by using the work product ?in such a way that they may end up in the hands of [his]adversary;? where plaintiff sent emails to attorney family members and copied his non-lawyer sister or another relative, court ruled emails were protected by work product doctrine because material was prepared in anticipation of litigation and sharing with relatives ?did not significantly increase the likelihood that [defendant] would obtain private information?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Finding the restrictions of a protective order preventing defendant?s access to its own electronic materials seized pursuant to a government investigation too onerous and unconstitutional in light of defendants need for access to assist in its defense, and where defendants sought only copies of the material seized such that the originals would remain preserved, court granted defendants motion to vacate or amend the protective order to allow access to the materials but indicated willingness to allow government to justify certain restrictions based on a showing of substantial need
Nature of Case: Challenge to governmental freeze on charity’s assets and seizure of documents and other tangible items pursuant to executive order
Electronic Data Involved: Copies of seized ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued she was entitled to a presumption that defendant had constructive notice of the hanger on the floor that allegedly caused her injuries because defendant failed to preserve the surveillance tape which would have proven such notice, but where plaintiff failed to request preservation of the relevant tape and failed to notify defendant of her intent to sue resulting in the loss of the tape from the system after 60 days, and where plaintiff offered no evidence of defendant?s bad faith, court declined to rely on such a presumption and granted defendant?s motion for summary judgment
Nature of Case: Slip and fall
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape
Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed electronic documents could not be located due to changes in the computer system upon merging and because of a lack of back up tapes for the relevant time period, court found that plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for its inability to produce, including explaining what happened to the files that previously existed, stated that plaintiff ?needs to show it has conducted a diligent search for responsive documents? and ordered plaintiffs to conduct further searches for responsive documents
Nature of Case: Recovery of legal expenses
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Where defendants objected to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arguing the requested search of emails and various computer drives would be unduly burdensome, court dismissed attorney?s affidavit in support of such objections as ?not compelling evidence? where attorney was not ?an expert on document search and retrieval? but, ?in an effort to control costs,? limited defendants? search to particular locations and ordered the use of 14 terms as supplied by the court or agreed upon by the parties; court invited defendants to renew their objections if the search nonetheless proved overly burdensome by submitting evidence, including evidence from ?computer experts,? in support of those objections
Nature of Case: Claims that defendants’ choice of plumbing fittings caused damage to plaintiffs’ property
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting reproductions of images found on appellant?s computer at trial where the Commonwealth presented testimony from the forensic scientist and investigator responsible for making the reproductions explaining the process of reproducing the images and confirming that the reproductions accurately represented the images on defendant?s hard drive, and where defendant admitted membership in relevant websites and storing child pornography on his computer; in Virginia, the best evidence rule is limited to writings and was not applicable in this case
Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography
Electronic Data Involved: Reproductions of images on defendant’s hard drive
Key Insight: Court granted Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to Non-party upon finding the subpoena ?overly broad on its face? where the subpoena failed to describe the documents sought with any particularity and would have essentially required the large third-party corporation ?to search its entire database of records to produce every document which refers or relates in any way to the named defendants and to [a former employee]?
Nature of Case: Discrimination in violation of Fair Housing Act
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.