Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to preserve and produce ESI responsive to plantiffs’ discovery requests.
Nature of Case: unpaid wages and overtime claims collective action
Electronic Data Involved: deleted electronic records, undecipherable codes, mobile device data, text messages
Keywords: adverse inference instruction, unintelligible, mockery of the orderly administration of justice
Key Insight: Rule 37(e) governs, an expert may not opine on what a party may/may not or should/should not have done
Nature of Case: Products liability
Electronic Data Involved: business documents
Keywords: Expert, 37(e), spoliation sanctions
Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.
Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents
Key Insight: Inadvertently produced ESI
Nature of Case: Product Liability
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for appointment of a neutral discovery expert and instead directed parties to meet and confer in person to create a plan to fully resolve their discovery dispute; court issued various directives and deadlines and recommended that plaintiffs send at least one paralegal or other individual with knowledge of or the capability to understand defendants? electronic and paper filing systems, to work with an appointed representative from defendants? side to search through defendants? electronic databases, and that defendants should appoint someone who could fully explain what is in the databases and assist in the search process
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic databases
Key Insight: Court found that entry of default was too harsh a punishment and that lesser sanction such as an adverse inference instruction was available and adequate to temper prejudice to plaintiffs resulting from individual defendant?s admitted deletion of e-mails containing plaintiff?s confidential information; court further ordered defendants to pay plaintiffs $2,500 for attorneys? fees no later than August 22, 2014
Nature of Case: Claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access Act, and the Wire and Electronic Communications and Interception of Oral Communications Act
Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments
Key Insight: Where district court had authorized limited discovery on the issue of standing, and parties disagreed on scope and method of search of data, magistrate judge concluded that the most efficient method was through the appointment of a special master as it would (1) permit a technical expert to review all the data in a timely and effective manner, (2) limit collateral attacks and claims of bias that were likely to result if either party conducted the search, and (3) protect any interests that parties not before the court might have, given plaintiffs’ claims that the data contains private information; magistrate judge recommended appointment of special master and further recommended using Google’s ?Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal? for selection of the special master, development of protocol and depositing of information, and all related matters
Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications
Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data
Key Insight: District Court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendation (at 2014 WL 4681403) but sustained two of plaintiffs? objections to Google?s Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal, ruling that the search should include not only each plaintiff?s network from which communications may have been sent, but also any other network on which plaintiffs? communications might have been received, and that plaintiffs should see the results of the special master?s searches in order to provide the special master with feedback to aid in subsequent searches
Nature of Case: Putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally intercepted, recorded and stored their Wi-Fi communications
Electronic Data Involved: Google’s “Street View” data
Key Insight: Notwithstanding court?s finding that defendants lost materials due to their negligence in failing to: (1) institute a litigation hold until more than two years after plaintiff filed her notice of claim, (2) discuss a litigation hold with named individual defendants and other key players, (3) preserve all ESI regarding plaintiff from named individual defendants and all key custodians in separate backup tapes or in some other medium, or (4) preserve work-related ESI utilized by key players on their personal computers or other devices, court declined to impose spoliation sanctions as it found no intent on the part of defendants to spoliate material evidence and plaintiff failed to meet burden of showing with some degree of factual detail that lost materials were relevant or helpful in prosecuting her claim; court further denied plaintiff?s request for appointment of independent forensic computer expert, but did impose $1,500 sanction against school district and its counsel given that court found merit to some of plaintiff?s arguments
Nature of Case: Workplace discrimination claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails
Key Insight: In a lengthy decision, the Special Master recounted chronology of “extraordinary misconduct and substantial and willful spoliation of relevant ESI” by defendant and observed: “The level of intentional destruction of evidence by UMC shocks the conscious.” The Special Master concluded that only case dispositive sanctions would fully protect plaintiffs from defendant’s willful discovery failures, and set out various recommendations including specific factual findings as to class certification and a rebuttable presumption regarding certain merit issues
Nature of Case: Class action alleging claims under Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada state wage and hour laws
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptops, personal mobile phones and BlackBerry devices, BlackBerry server, databases, SMS text messages, etc.
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.