Key Insight: Court denied Spain’s motion to reconsider November 3, 2006 Opinion and Order rejecting the various reasons offered as support
Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on city’s overwriting of backup tapes and failure to preserve computer’s hard drive, where subject computer had been reassigned and its hard drive re-imaged before discovery requests were served, missing evidence was not crucial to plaintiff’s claims, and destruction of the material was not done in bad faith
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive and backup tapes
Key Insight: Court concluded that defendants’ duty to preserve was triggered by filing of complaint, and not by earlier demand letters that were equivocal and “less than adamant”; court further denied most of the sanctions requested but imposed $5,000 monetary sanction for defendants? failure to preserve hard drives of departed employees and failure to confirm the accuracy and completeness of production; court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that Zubulake V created a new obligation for litigants to conduct “system-wide keyword searches”
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and denied defendant’s request to shift costs of production to plaintiff, since defendant provided no information about whether and how such information was “inaccessible” or any other information relevant to cost-shifting determination under Zubulake III; court encouraged parties to agree on most efficient means of production and noted that plaintiff had indicated willingness to provide high capacity storage devices
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Adult video content; website traffic information
Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions but not adverse inference instruction where defendant negligently failed to implement adequate litigation hold and preserve electronic evidence, but evidence was insufficient to show defendant acted in bad faith or with culpable state of mind or that plaintiff had suffered any prejudice
Nature of Case: Environmental litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Email and backup tapes
Key Insight: Adverse inference and monetary sanctions warranted, but not default judgment, where defendant acknowledged that its personnel routinely deleted emails without regard to whether the deleted emails were relevant to the litigation, but behavior did not constitute a pattern of deliberately deceptive litigation practices and there was evidence that the actual number of emails lost was small
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: In stipulated order, parties agreed that plaintiffs would preserve hard drives used by plaintiffs and plaintiffs? decedents and that such hard drives would be imaged and analyzed pursuant to an agreed forensic examination protocol; that responsive ESI would be collected by defendants from defendants’ active IT environment and not from backup tapes absent exceptional circumstances, and that plaintiffs would defer to defendants as to the format of production
Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to revise earlier court order denying production of computer hard drives for review by forensics expert, declining to adopt the law of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and finding that defendant had violated no duty to preserve since emails were deleted according to routine policy and at the time she filed the complaint, plaintiff made no request that emails be preserved
Nature of Case: Age discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email
Key Insight: Court modified Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition and ordered defendant to produce a representative to testify concerning various matters, including defendant’s document destruction and retention policies for paper and electronic information, and what information sought in particular interrogatory could be retrieved from computer system and what could only be retrieved manually
Nature of Case: Drug company claimed drug store chain improperly substituted one drug for another
Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases
Key Insight: Where there was no evidence that server logs were erased in bad faith and facts suggested that defendant was, at most, merely negligent, since it took reasonable steps to preserve relevant data — it retained and consulted with technical expert; on advice of its expert, it made a copy of the relevant server logs on CDs that could not be overwritten; it stored copies of the data on its server; and it made the data on the server available for inspection by plaintiff prior to the time it was overwritten — and where plaintiff was unable to demonstrate any real prejudice from the loss of some metadata in server logs, magistrate judge found no basis for spoliation sanctions of any kind and recommended denial of plaintiff’s sanctions motion
Nature of Case: Parties asserted claims under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, each arguing that the other had obtained unlawful access to databases
Electronic Data Involved: Metadata; server logs
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.