Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party
Key Insight: Where defense expert witnesses testified that defense counsel prepared the first drafts of reports, and revisions and changes were often exchanged through email, and plaintiff contended that it could not tell whether all drafts were produced, nor could it tell who created and/or revised each draft, court ordered defendant to produce copies of all drafts of all expert opinions, together with all communications between defendant?s employees or counsel and expert witnesses regarding the drafts; court further ordered defendant to provide a declaration of counsel confirming full production and explaining the chronology of the revisions and the author of each set of revisions; declaration would be binding on defendant and could be used for cross-examination of expert witnesses
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email and draft expert reports
Key Insight: Court directed defense counsel to file supplemental memorandum regarding her communications with defendant regarding supplemental discovery responses and preservation of evidence and to provide documentation of same for in camera inspection; court further directed defendant to make available key player’s hard drive for forensic examination
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Drawings; hard drive
Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel and for sanctions where parties had agreed on detailed ESI discovery protocol and defendant had opportunity to discover ESI from plaintiff pursuant thereto but never availed itself of that opportunity notwithstanding plaintiff’s continued cooperation; court further awarded sanctions to plaintiff for having to oppose the motion
Nature of Case: Construction litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy
Key Insight: Court ordered production of a complete copy of defendant’s Sequel database, and any historical backup copies of database spanning relevant time period, since it was highly relevant to parties’ claims and defenses and defendant had not articulated a valid legal basis for resisting its disclosure; court further ordered that the database was to be treated as “Highly Confidential” pursuant to court’s confidentiality order
Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata,” since plaintiff failed to comply with local procedural requirements for motion and because plaintiff never specified electronic format in original discovery requests but instead merely asked defendants for such production subsequently
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata
Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s attorneys? repeated inaccurate representations that all responsive documents had been produced demonstrated gross negligence but not intentional bad faith, and belated production necessitated re-opening discovery and continuing trial date, court concluded that requested sanction of dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and default judgment against plaintiff on cross-claims was too harsh and that lesser (monetary) sanctions were appropriate
Nature of Case: Construction litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Computer files relating to $100 million construction project, computer index, audiotapes of meetings
Key Insight: Where defendant traveled 20 miles to dispose of his computer in a construction site dumpster within days of receiving notice of lawsuit, court found that defendant acted in bad faith but that sanction of default judgment was too severe since plaintiff’s claims were not “severely” or “incurably” prejudiced as a result; court instead deemed certain facts conclusively proven and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with motion and related discovery
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract
Electronic Data Involved: Computer
Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enter and inspect crossing area and directed defendant to arrange for an employee to be on-site during the inspection to provide a download of all available date from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system stored on-site; court denied motion to compel production of particular employee’s computer since the computer had been returned to a vendor and defendant had already produced a copy of computer’s hard drive
Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile
Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.