Key Insight: delayed legal hold and missing metadata caused prejudice; sanctions imposed such that plaintiffs may not use the date in a document to prove document creation date and defendant may offer archived websites from the internet into evidence
Nature of Case: defamation, libel
Electronic Data Involved: websites, emails, metadata
Keywords: metadata, legal hold, spoliation of websites
Key Insight: communications that occurred outside of the mediation but involve the mediator are not protected by the mediation privilege
Nature of Case: Insurance Bad Faith
Electronic Data Involved: documents used in mediation that Defendant claim to be protected by mediation privilege
Keywords: mediation privilege, reconsideration, under seal
Key Insight: Lack of prejudice or evidence of intent to deprive. Denied motion for dispositive sanctions under Rule 37(e). No evidence that higher quality recordings actually existed and were not preserved.
Nature of Case: Excessive force used during security screening
Electronic Data Involved: closed circuit video recordings
Keywords: preserve video recording, excessive force at the security screening.
Key Insight: Lost ESI claim failed because there was no proof anything was lost and there was no clear duty to preserve.
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: archived email, facebook posts
Keywords: spoliation, lost ESI, duty to preserve
Key Insight: Court found requested data was relevant to class certification but, where Defendant indicated that Plaintiff?s requests ?encompass [ ] tens of millions of transactions and weekly data for each of the more than 6 million merchants that accept American Express? that ?is scattered over at least 6 databases at American Express,? court agreed with Defendant that the requested discovery created an ?enormous burden? and therefore ordered sampling, in a size to be agreed upon by the parties at a court-ordered meet and confer
Nature of Case: class action
Electronic Data Involved: Chargeback-related data (ESI)
Key Insight: Spoliation instructions to jury were erroneous and the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. No evidence of spoliation was presented at trial and hence spoliation instructions were improper. The Court also went on to discuss the spoliation evidence since it could arise in a new trial. The Court found no spoliation with regard to the deleted emails since Plaintiff?s deletion of emails occurred before she could have anticipated a lawsuit. The Court found that the disposal of Plaintiff?s laptop and sale of her desktop might be spoliation of evidence if there is reason to believe the deleted emails could be recovered from either computer?s hard drive. If Defendant can present evidence that the emails could have been recovered then the court may grant her an instruction on spoliation.
Nature of Case: Alienation of affections
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives
Key Insight: Applying Fed. R. Evid. 502, court found Defendants? inadvertent inclusion of privileged information in the Administrative Record did not waive privilege where declarations of persons with ?sufficient personal knowledge? established the inadvertence of the inclusion where, in light of the multiple levels of review of the documents and the relevant circumstances including the ?sheer number of pages and compressed timeframe,? the court found Defendant had undertaken reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and where Defendants took action to rectify the error within three weeks of the disclosure
Nature of Case: Administrative law
Electronic Data Involved: Administrative Record
Key Insight: Court agreed with recommendation of magistrate judge and held costs incurred by a non-party for compliance with an order compelling production are reimbursable. The magistrate judge ordered the Non-Party to submit a cost estimate for reviewing the documents, preparing a privilege log and producing the non-privileged documents. The cost estimate submitted was over $120,000. Defendant then presented a pared down document request and the magistrate judge issued a Modified Subpoena. The Court accepted the magistrate judge?s recommendation and ordered Defendant to pay $14,174.32 for the costs to Non-Party of complying with the Modified Subpoena stating that Defendant ?was the recipient of the fruits of Non-Party[?s] labor.? The Court also agreed with the magistrate judge that non-parties are not protected by the work product doctrine.
Nature of Case: Non-party compensation for document production
Electronic Data Involved: emails and non-electronic documents
Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s concerns regarding Defendants production, characterized by the court as ?thousands of pages of unorganized documents,? the court reasoned that ?Rule 33(d) does not supplant a party?s duty to adequately label and identify responsive documents under Rule 34,? that courts have recognized that production of documents as kept in the usual course of business ?may require the producing party to include different identifying information according to the type of document or file produced,? and that ?the most recent? court decisions have held that both Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) apply to the production of ESI and concluded that Defendant?s response fell short of its duties under 34(b)(2)(E) and 33(d)(1) and stated that ?[s]ome form of further organization or specification is required to signify that they have provided ?rationally organized productions??
Electronic Data Involved: Unorganized ESI
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.