Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s December 21, 2008 order imposing sanctions of $99,462, upheld the December 21, 2008 order in its entirety, and ordered defendants to comply with the order by March 3, 2008
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract
Electronic Data Involved: Computer
Key Insight: Where emails and other documents stored on backup records were destroyed after complaint was filed, but reasons defendant began destroying such outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes at that time were (1) to reduce storage costs of up to $4,000 per year and (2) because data on tapes was no longer readable, and decision to destroy the unusable tapes not made by anyone who had anything to do with plaintiff, court concluded evidence did not support drawing any adverse inference from defendant?s intentional destruction of potentially probative evidence
Nature of Case: Claim for violation of FMLA
Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes
Key Insight: Where defendant certified that he had deleted any and all of plaintiff’s proprietary information from his computer and stipulated to plaintiff’s requested relief, court ordered that a mutually acceptable representative of plaintiff be allowed to examine defendant’s computer to confirm permanent deletion of proprietary information
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information
Electronic Data Involved: Recruiting firm’s database; computer hard drive
Key Insight: Because court ruled that plaintiff?s claims were without merit and granted defendant?s motion to dismiss, with prejudice, court concluded there was no need for expert to access laptop?s hard drive and that defendant was entitled to return of its property; court ordered plaintiff to return laptop and other property to defendant former employer, and directed defendant to ?preserve, maintain, and protect all such property and things in their present state from destruction, modification and/or alteration? until the action was finalized
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Employer-provided laptop
Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that defendant’s search for responsive documents was insufficient insofar as it was limited to search of computers of seven employees listed in defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosure using five search terms, and defendant represented that: (1) it searched records of employees who were principally involved with project, (2) it used search terms that would reasonably lead to responsive documents without also producing volumes of unrelated documents, (3) in addition to conducting computer-based search, it also asked employees to search their electronic and physical records; (4) there were no other locations where responsive documents might be located; and (5) it did not have any backup tapes to search as its attempts to restore lost data had failed, court found defendant had conducted reasonable search for responsive documents and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel broader search
Nature of Case: Contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI
Key Insight: Court denied third party?s motion to quash and ordered it to produce 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding maintenance of electronic copies of files, including electronic copies of two contested letters, backup procedures utilized, and document and electronic record retention policies
Nature of Case: Securities fraud, common law fraud, promissory and equitable estoppel, breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of two disputed letters
Key Insight: Court granted motion brought by plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B), Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and issued order compelling defendant to produce witness or witnesses who could fully testify about document retention practices and policies of HUD and actual steps taken to produce documents
Nature of Case: Owners of low-income housing who had received mortgage insurance from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought action alleging regulatory taking
Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies
Key Insight: Where Commissioner was legally authorized to conduct an investigation, subpoena sought documents and ESI that were reasonably relevant to investigation, and Commissioner had valid concerns regarding completeness of plaintiff?s prior productions, court found that investigative subpoena was issued for a proper purpose and denied plaintiff?s motion to quash; court further rejected plaintiff?s claim that subpoena was unduly burdensome, noting that plaintiff had failed to present any documentary evidence of its cost estimates and that plaintiff must bear production costs like any other cost of doing business
Nature of Case: Securities investigation conducted by Connecticut Commissioner of Banking
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant?s subpoenas to plaintiff?s suppliers and customers were overly broad and requested information from too broad a time period, court noted that ?[d]iscovery requests directed to an opponent’s customers are to be approached with caution, even more than is advised in most discovery directed to third-parties,? and ordered that numerous requests be modified or narrowed in scope; court further noted that protective order could sufficiently protect confidential information sought from suppliers
Nature of Case: Breach of contract litigation concerning digital video player intellectual property
Electronic Data Involved: Email, source code, object code, executable code and other ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce website information because the information was maintained by and in the custody of a third party internet service provider, and because defendant could not access the materials because its account had expired, court acknowledged general rule that ?production is not ordered unless the responding party has exclusive control of the documents? and plaintiff?s failure to subpoena third party directly but nonetheless ordered defendants to ?take all necessary steps to obtain the requested documents? from third party and for the parties to split the cost
Nature of Case: Misappropriate of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Website
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.