Key Insight: Court adopted Special Master?s Report and Recommendation requiring plaintiffs to respond to questions regarding the scope of their efforts with regard to the restoration of backup tapes upon finding that such information was not protected by the attorney-client privilege
Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, ESI
Key Insight: Court indicated reluctance to intervene in discovery dispute regarding contents of back up tapes where parties failed to properly confer regarding electronic discovery but, where defendants offered to search back up tapes for relevant emails from two custodians on three specific dates, court ordered the search and prescribed search terms to employ; where the estimated labor to conduct the limited search of the back up tapes would not be excessive or unduly burdensome, court ordered defendant to bear cost
Electronic Data Involved: Back up tapes
Key Insight: Court found emails ?not reasonably accessible? in light of representations of undue burden, including the need for vendor assistance to accomplish the necessary searching, and, upon shifting the burden to defendant to show ?good cause? for the additional emails sought, ordered some specific searching using specific terms and for the parties to confer to identify additional custodians
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff filed a motion to compel (or for sanctions) following its discovery that defendant failed to search a number of backup tapes and failed to maintain all tapes which may have contained responsive ESI, court denied the motion upon finding that burden of restoration of the tapes was ?disproportionate to the likely utility of doing so? and because LaSalle had a practice of printing and filing important emails; court also noted the parties? failure to adequately confer regarding the discovery of ESI
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes
Key Insight: Despite the ?clearly burdensome? process required to restore, review and produce the requested ESI, court ordered production of a specific category of ESI, where ?fairness demand[ed]? plaintiff have an opportunity to review? it, but ordered that if plaintiff continued to desire production of the remaining categories ?for which plaintiff ha[d] a lesser need, in light of all of the other discovery in this matter,? plaintiff must pay half the cost
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions, despite finding that defendant violated its duty to preserve and negligently destroyed potentially relevant ESI, where plaintiff produced nothing except speculation in support of her claim that the destroyed emails would have benefited her position.
Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where third-party presented evidence that responding to subpoena would require searching hundreds of locations, would require the restoration of back up tapes, and would take ?over two years to accomplish and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,? court modified subpoena to narrow scope of the request, but ordered production of relevant documents, ?even if they [were] not reasonably accessible?
Nature of Case: Allegations of wrongful termination in furtherance of political scheme
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court granted protective order precluding obligation to search archived emails or emails stored on backup tapes where such emails were ?not reasonably accessible? in light of the estimated $1.5 million retrieval costs and because backup tapes are generally considered inaccessible, and where plaintiffs failed to establish good cause for such production; where defendant offered a ?scaled back alternative,? court ordered parties to split the cost of retrieving emails from a particular subset of backup tapes and provided plaintiffs the opportunity to compel searches of an additional subset of tapes – at their expense – including the cost of review
Nature of Case: Allegations of discriminatory safety inspections of African American owned buses en route to Atlantic City
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, email
Key Insight: Affirming the trial court?s judgment, appellate court found appellees did not fail to comply with discovery obligations or conceal facts, despite failure to initially identify or search backup tapes, where appellant failed to initially request production of backup tapes and where appellees later offered evidence of the unreasonableness of such a request upon court?s order to detail search efforts – court?s analysis also focused on the parties? failure to confer regarding electronic discovery pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.4; distinguishing Zubulake, court also found no duty to preserve pre-2000 backup tapes where appellants failed to establish that appellees knew or should have known that the tapes contained ?material and relevant evidence? and thus failed to establish appellees? duty to preserve
Nature of Case: Misrepresentations and fraudulent inducement
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes
Key Insight: Finding that District Attorney?s admitted deletion of more than 2,500 emails sought by subpoena constituted ?unexcused, egregious conduct,? court found him in contempt of court and imposed $18,900 in sanctions (representing attorneys? fees); court further found that actions of attorney representing DA in the proceedings were ?unprincipled and dilatory, at best, constituting a deliberate indifference to the Court’s Orders and subpoena,? held him in contempt of court, and ordered that $5,000 of the $18,900 in sanctions awarded against DA was jointly and severally awarded against his attorney
Nature of Case: Civil rights suit against Harris County, Texas, the Harris County Sheriff and several Harris County deputies
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails of the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.