Key Insight: Court narrowed scope of subpoena and ordered plaintiff and third party to negotiate a reasonable “sample” protocol and search protocol to expedite production, limit the burden and perhaps develop information to return to court to refine the court’s ruling
Nature of Case: Securities class action
Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets
Key Insight: Denying plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment as sanction for tardy production of documents, court found that plaintiff had suffered little prejudice from delay and that defendant had worked diligently, did not willfully withhold responsive documents, and did not improperly modify or delete files froom hard drive before voluntarily producing it
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive
Key Insight: Defendant’s response to (overbroad) document request, which directed requesting party to defendant’s web site where relevant HR policies and a particular employee handbook could be retrieved, was not insufficient response; court narrowed request and ordered production of any additional documents within 20 days; no sanctions warranted
Nature of Case: Former employee alleged violations of free speech, due process and gender discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic HR policies and manuals
Key Insight: Concluding that defendant had a right to obtain audiotaped prior statements of witnesses for use in cross-examining the individuals whose statements were on the tapes, court noted in footnote: “The audiotapes at issue here are the functional equivalent of written statements. It would be a towering triumph of form over substance to hold that [defendant’s former employer’s] choice of an electronic, rather than a documentary, mode of preserving the witness’ statements puts the statements beyond the reach of a subpoena duces tecum.”
Nature of Case: Criminal sexual harassment
Electronic Data Involved: Audiotapes of witness’ statements made by defendant’s former employer
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of defendant’s current computerized master payroll file and all computer print-outs for W-2 forms of defendant’s employees, given accuracy of records and inexpensiveness of production
Nature of Case: Race discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Computerized master payroll file
Key Insight: Defendant ordered to provide copies of computer tapes containing data previously provided in hard copy form
Nature of Case: Challenge of decision by Dept. of Commerce to deny plaintiff access to computer tapes in trade investigation
Electronic Data Involved: Computer tapes containing costs and sales data
Key Insight: Order memorialized parties’ agreement regarding motion to compel: defendants agreed to produce all emails that exist in printed form, but would not conduct search of electronic database to retrieve emails since it would be cost prohibitive; defendant understood it would be precluded from offering evidence at trial that was not properly disclosed in discovery
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Reversing summary judgment for DOD, court stated that relevant inquiry as to whether an agency must provide information in requested format is whether, in general, a requested format is one that is “readily reproducible” by the agency, benchmarked against the agency’s “normal business as usual approach” with respect to reproducing data in the ordinary course of the agency’s business (not limited solely to the context of FOIA requests)
Nature of Case: FOIA action
Electronic Data Involved: Two electronic files in “zipped” format
Key Insight: Where defendant resisted production of technical specifications in electronic form because material had already been produced at great expense in hard copy form, magistrate ruled that defendant must allow plaintiff’s expert to view material in electronic form at defendant’s facility during regular business hours under and such further terms and conditions as the parties agree
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Technical specifications
Key Insight: Where plaintiff demonstrated that allowing defendant unrestricted access to database would result in a clearly defined and serious injury, court held that plaintiff’s “confidential – attorneys’ eyes only” designation was appropriate and denied motion to compel
Nature of Case: Contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Database containing research data
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.