Key Insight: Court upheld grant of adverse inference for intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a hard drive ordered to be produced for inspection and noted that because the destruction was intentional or grossly negligent, the court?s inference as to the erased emails? relevance was proper
Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive
Key Insight: Where defendant subpoenaed third parties seeking production of communications between defendant and those third parties from years prior, and where defendant could not produce those communications itself, court found the information relevant and denied third parties? motion to quash but, noting that defendant?s insufficient document retention policies resulted in the need to subpoena the information, court ordered defendant to bear the costs of production
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Key Insight: For the erasure of relevant surveillance tape pursuant to department practice, the trial court properly denied defendant?s request for dismissal absent evidence of destruction in bad faith because the evidence was not exculpatory but rather ?potentially useful?; for the delayed disclosure of the existence and subsequent destruction of the tape, trial court properly denied request for sanctions absent a showing of prejudice; trial court properly denied request for an adverse inference absent evidence of bad faith
Nature of Case: Criminal drug charges
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape
Key Insight: Where defendants? failed to preserve relevant evidence but later undertook a ?diligent and expensive attempt to retrieve what was lost? resulting in the discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, the court declined to impose default judgment absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and found that the imposition of attorneys? fees would result in ?disproportional punishment? in light of defendants? search expenditures; court declined to impose adverse inference or issue preclusion where the quantity and nature of evidence still missing was in dispute such that prejudice could not be established and ordered an evidentiary hearing; court found letter sent to parent company of defendant (plaintiff?s employer) was sufficient to trigger preservation obligation where the letter made specific mention of its applicability to all subsidiaries, was unambiguous about the intent to sue, and indicated its applicability to SFX in its reference line
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop
Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion in limine and imposed an adverse inference resulting from defendant?s failure to preserve surveillance video tape potentially containing footage of the underlying accident upon finding that defendant was aware of its duty to preserve but took no steps to prevent the footage from being automatically recorded over; court denied request for default judgment where such a drastic step was not warranted absent evidence of the ?requisite willfulness, fault, or bad faith?; court declined to impose monetary sanctions
Nature of Case: Personal injury/slip and fall
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape
Key Insight: Finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support plaintiff?s claim of willful or intentional spoliation and sufficient direct evidence that defendants? handling of the relevant surveillance footage was ?at least negligent,? the court declined to order terminating sanctions where plaintiff was ?not at a complete loss? in light of alternative evidence to support his claims, but ordered an adverse inference, the language of which will be addressed at trial
Nature of Case: Violations of state constitutional rights and state tort claims arising from an altercation
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage
Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to clarify the agreed preliminary injunction order where, following entry of the agreement, defendant determined that the broad language addressing preservation created a cost prohibitive obligation that was broader than necessary to protect the plaintiff and agreed to enter an order reflecting defendant?s proposed revision which was more specific regarding what must be preserved
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court found destruction or loss of documents resulting from failure to issue a litigation hold grossly negligent but declined to recommend dismissal or an adverse inference where the record did not reveal actual or likely prejudice and held open defendant?s option to renew their request following re-depositions of the relevant custodian, the cost of which plaintiff was to bear; for the late production of responsive documents, court recommended additional depositions and for plaintiff to bear the cost and for plaintiff to bear defendants? costs associated with the instant motions; magistrate judge?s recommendations were affirmed by the district court in their entirety 2010 WL 4027780 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010)
Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged defects in cellular towers designed and manufactured by defendant
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for preservation and inspection of defendant?s relevant hardware but found plaintiff?s proposed protocol overly burdensome and thus ordered adherence to defendant?s proposed protocol which called for more targeted searches using terms proposed by plaintiff and provided a more reasonable time frame for the production of documents and privilege logs; parties to split the cost
Nature of Case: Claims arising from employees’ departure from plaintiff’s company to join defendant’s
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives
Key Insight: District court upheld denial of sanctions for defendants? failure to preserve emails and other ESI where plaintiffs failed to establish the prejudice resulting from the failure to preserve by presenting nothing more than speculation and by failing to pursue other possible sources of discovery (which the court characterized as ?incongruent with Plaintiff?s claim of prejudice?) and where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendant intentionally destroyed or withheld evidence to suppress the truth
Nature of Case: Claims alleging disparate treatment and impact arising from City’s enforecement of housing codes
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, other ESI
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.