Key Insight: Insurer’s willful failure to comply with discovery orders and failure to produce database warranted evidentiary preclusion order amounting to entry of default judgment on agent’s counterclaim
Nature of Case: Insurer sued former general agent and agent counterclaimed for renewal commissions owed
Electronic Data Involved: Database containing raw data regarding policies sold by agents
Key Insight: After defendant accounting firm produced only 25 pages of email from one custodian plus 14 emails from other employees, and plaintiffs voiced suspicions that production was incomplete, court directed defendant to fax to plaintiffs a written explanation of all the steps taken to find responsive emails; as to any further steps, court directed parties to read Magistrate Judge Francis’ opinion in Rowe Entertainment, then meet and confer re eight Rowe factors
Nature of Case: Securities litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Defendant’s subpoena to ISP of plaintiff, which sought all copies of all email sent or received by anyone at plaintiff with no limitation as to time or scope, was “massively overbroad,” “patently unlawful,” and “transparently and egregiously” violated federal rules; besides warranting sanctions in underlying suit, subpoena was grounds for separate action by employees of plaintiff against defendant for violation of federal Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and state law
Nature of Case: Violation of federal electronic privacy and computer fraud statutes
Electronic Data Involved: Email stored by Internet Service Provider
Key Insight: Finding defendant’s actions went “far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct that led to the nonproduction of all technical e-mails,” district court affirmed the spoliation inference jury instruction and monetary sanctions imposed by magistrate
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to respond to document requests by searching its electronic storage devices and electronic data compilations; plaintiff convinced court that defendant may not have satisfied its discovery obligations by showing that responsive Diebold documents and emails had been obtained from other sources, but had yet to be produced by Diebold itself
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Plaintiff’s failure to preserve computer printouts and telephone lists loaded onto Palm Pilot did not warrant an adverse inference instruction, but did warrant monetary sanctions of $28,271.75 to be paid by party (not his attorney) to compensate the victim for attorneys’ fees and expenses arising both from additional discovery required to locate equivalent information by alternative means and from the motion practice necessitated by the spoliation
Nature of Case: Action seeking monetary damages and specific performance of stock option agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy material loaded onto Palm Pilot
Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff’s motion to reconsider recommended decision on summary judgment and motion to supplement the record with additional electronic materials (including email) obtained from belatedly produced zip disk, since plaintiff failed to seek a continuance under Rule 56(f) and proffer came two months after receipt of electronic media and was therefore tardy
Nature of Case: Contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents and email stored on “zip” disk
Key Insight: Finding representative parts/assumptions sanctions imposed by magistrate to be moderate, fair, and narrowly tailored to redress defendant’s discovery violations, district court upheld sanctions with slight modifications
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Schematics, completion reports, netlists and other technical documents
Key Insight: Zenith’s motion to compel granted, requiring production in usable form of SAS data sets, constituting final refined forms of data used to compute final results; court criticized government’s inordinately restrictive interpretation of its discovery obligations: “To say that the data sets into which the computer tapes were transferred are not governed by an order speaking of computer tapes is as if someone had said at the dawn of the era of typewriters that typed documents are not governed by a court order speaking of ‘writings.'”
Nature of Case: Proceeding to review Dept. of Commerce’s review of antidumping duty order regarding television sets
Electronic Data Involved: Data sets
Key Insight: On defendant’s motion for reconsideration, court again described numerous discovery failings by the defendants, concluded that it would adhere to its prior decision at 212 F.R.D. 178, and further rejected two new arguments belatedly advanced by defendant relating the merits of plaintiff’s underlying claims
Nature of Case: Opera company sued union
Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic documents; hard drives
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.