Key Insight: Where party failed to provide adequate explanation for non-disclosure of relevant email and engaged in other questionable behavior, including providing evasive responses to deposition questions, but where scope of prejudice to opposing party was ?not clear,? court declined to impose dispositive sanctions but ordered discovery re-opened to allow deposition regarding the email and surrounding issues
Key Insight: Where the court interpreted defendant?s response to plaintiff?s second motion to compel to mean that defendant had complied with its preservation obligations and may produce additional materials and explicitly required defendant to immediately notify the court if that interpretation was not accurate ? and where that interpretation was not accurate but was not corrected by defendant – court granted plaintiff?s third motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all ESI and other responsive documents with an affidavit describing the steps taken to ensure such production and warned defendant that if ?counsel makes this kind of mistake again? the court would impose sanctions
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions for production of unreadable cds where there was no indication that the issue was discussed prior to the filing of the motion and no evidence as to who was at fault but ordered defendants to make the records available in a readable format and, if electronic copies were not readable, to print the materials for production; for defendants’ failure to produce documents pursuant to court order and for ?evasive and inappropriate? responses to requests for clarification about that failure, court ordered monetary sanctions against defense counsel personally where the court determined such responses were the result of her tactical decisions
Nature of Case: Interference with contractual relationship and other claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant was successful in ?ascertaining with clarity whether it had any information responsive to the discovery dispute? only after months of delay and claims that it was unable to perform the requisite searches in its computer system, court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s fees and costs upon finding that defendant failed to show its behavior was ?substantially justified? or that sanctions would be ?unjust? and where plaintiff was ?the victor in the discovery dispute? and suffered prejudice by defendant?s delay, including ?unnecessary expenditure of time and expense?
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendants failed to adequately respond to discovery in defiance of two court orders, trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of certain of defendants? hard drives to ensure that all responsive documents had been produced but erred in ?not providing adequate protections to safeguard the confidentiality? of defendants? information; case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the protocol described by the appellate court, i.e., the retention of an independent expert to retrieve potentially responsive files to be reviewed by the producing party before production to ensure protection of confidentiality and privilege
Nature of Case: Age discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives
Key Insight: Where defendant produced responsive documents after the close of discovery and explained that he believed the documents had been previously produced by his prior employer based on his misunderstanding that all documents saved to his personal computer were also saved on the employer?s network (and thus collected from that source), the court reasoned that ?a trial on the merits of the case outweighs and prejudice to the plaintiff?, that the plaintiff had had more than a month to complete the review of the newly produced documents, and that defendant had fulfilled his obligation to supplement discovery and denied defendant?s motion to exclude plaintiff?s use of the documents; court allowed defendant to depose plaintiff for an additional two hours
Electronic Data Involved: Late produced ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed its inability to timely respond to defendant?s discovery requests was caused by defendant?s failure to provide access to Medi-web website, court rejected claims that defendant had intentionally misled plaintiff but reasoned that defendant?s behavior ?was not exemplary? and that the parties should have addressed the website when developing their discovery plan; court?s order upheld prior evidentiary sanction for late productions of evidence related to claims of breach of duty, but excepted evidence not known to plaintiffs until after accessing Medi-web
Nature of Case: Breach of statutory and contractual duties
Electronic Data Involved: Website
Key Insight: Where defendant objected to magistrate judge?s order ?to do what the [Rules] already require in no uncertain terms, and that is to search for the responsive documents and produce them? (where defendant had unilaterally decided not to look for ESI), court rejected defendant?s objections, including her argument of undue burden, where plaintiffs? use of broad language did not automatically render them overbroad and where declarations in support of the alleged burden were ?largely conclusory?, where magistrate?s order (and Federal Rules) did not require futile searching where it was clear no documents would be found (after good faith inquiry), and where defendant offered only speculation that her search would result in ?needless duplication?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination action
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s claims that discovery was produced as maintained in the usual course of business where documents were printed, copied, bates labeled and then converted to .pdf format and defendant?s objections that plaintiff?s requests were overly broad and burdensome, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all responsive documents, organized and labeled according to each request, and to produce to plaintiff and the court a ?faithful electronic copy? of its relevant database with metadata intact to allow for inspection if the need arose; doubting the sufficiency of defendant?s production of email, court ordered company?s president to order a diligent search for responsive documents and to certify by affidavit (using language provided by the court) that such a search was conducted and to provide an explanation for any missing or unfound documents
Nature of Case: Beach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails
Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s delayed production of untranslated medical records after the close of discovery, court precluded use of the late-disclosed records upon reasoning that the late disclosure was not substantially justified and resulted in prejudice to the defendants and upon reasoning that to allow such disclosure would result in continued delay of the proceedings in light of likely need to re-open expert disclosure, among other things
Electronic Data Involved: Late produced CD containing untranslated medical records
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.