Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to image defendants? and third parties? computers pursuant to Rule 45 where inspection sought evidence of defamation unrelated to plaintiff?s claims of fraud in connections with the sale of securities and other related fraud
Nature of Case: Securities fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes, removable storage units
Key Insight: Court issued writ of mandate vacating award of sanctions against defendant for spoliation of video and photographic evidence where trial court had no statutory or inherent authority to order sanctions absent defendant?s violation of a court order or sufficiently egregious or exceptional circumstances and, where by failing to timely move to compel further response upon Albertson?s alleged deficient production, plaintiffs waived their rights to do so
Nature of Case: Negligence and premises liability
Electronic Data Involved: Video and photographic evidence
Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted potentially relevant emails despite a duty to preserve, court granted defendants access to plaintiff?s servers to perform electronic recovery of deleted emails; court ordered defendant to retain independent professional to perform recovery at defendants? expense and for recovered emails to be provided directly to plaintiff?s counsel for review and production
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails
Key Insight: Where the court found that defendants had ?intentionally destroyed or withheld? ESI, including by deleting relevant evidence or attempting to discard a relevant hard drive (which was instead saved by the technician defendant told to discard it), and where the destruction resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, the court ordered default judgment against defendant and other evidentiary sanctions
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Applying a five-factor balancing test and in light of significant confidentiality and federalism concerns present in the case, Sixth Circuit concluded that certain aspects of district court’s orders constituted a ?demonstrable abuse of discretion,? and granted, in part, defendants? petition for mandamus and set aside those provisions of the district court’s orders that required forensic imaging of state-owned and privately owned computers, including the provisions that required U.S. Marshal or his designee to assist plaintiffs’ computer expert in execution of orders
Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of roughly 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services
Electronic Data Involved: State-owned and privately owned computers
Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference given possibility that ISP may destroy information that could identify Doe defendants, discovery request was narrowly tailored and would substantially contribute to moving case forward, and defendants could not be identified without requested information; to protect any privacy rights or first amendment protections of Doe defendants, court set out procedure for ISP to first contact subscribers prior to releasing their information and set deadlines for any motions to quash
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Where defendants failed to preserve laptop by continued use and by running defragmentation program, court imposed sanction of fees and costs and precluded defendants from making particular arguments that became unverifiable as result of failure to preserve; where forensic examination revealed creation of false evidence on laptop, court ordered accused defendant to show cause why matter should not be referred for prosecution
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Laptop
Key Insight: Where defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice if required to preserve information, failed to adequately establish the inaccessibility of the information sought, and failed to demonstrate the absence of ?questions serious enough to require litigation,? court granted plaintiffs? motion for preliminary injunction and preservation order requiring defendants to preserve information useful for identifying persons accessing plaintiffs? intellectual property through defendants? website
Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding visitors to a particular website
Key Insight: Despite indicating concern regarding the cross-claim plaintiff?s deletion of employees? emails after firing them for inappropriate accounting, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to identify evidence indicating that the emails would have contained relevant evidence and where fact discovery had been closed for more than a year and plaintiff ?appear[ed] to have presented what it view[ed] as a quite complete theory of the case using the voluminous evidence? available to it
Electronic Data Involved: Emails of fired employees
Key Insight: Where District’s discovery responses were insufficient, objections unfounded, and “rolling” production of documents spanned two years with ten supplemental responses, and where plaintiffs presented evidence that District had failed to give witnesses timely instructions for preserving and producing relevant email, court ordered District to review each of plaintiffs’ document requests, perform a complete and thorough search for responsive documents (including emails and faxes), and provide responsive documents to plaintiffs; court further awarded plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in bringing motion, and ruled that District would be required, upon completion of discovery, to certify to court that it has responded fully to all document requests and that no other responsive documents exist as of time of certification
Nature of Case: Plaintiffs alleged that District violated Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.