Key Insight: Where defendant had nearly six months to review and accumulate responsive ESI, and represented to court that it intended to produce responsive ESI but provided no date for such production, court ordered defendant to produce ESI within 30 days of court?s order
Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery issues, court set protocol for production of certain documents by non-party: (1) plaintiffs to specify documents sought in native format with metadata; (2) within 10 days, non-party to file with court an estimate of the cost of production of all documents; (3) within 10 days, plaintiffs to pay into court?s registry total sum of non-party?s estimate, or limit request to reduce estimated costs; (4) within 21 days, non-party to produce those documents or electronic files to plaintiffs in their original format with metadata; (5) within 10 days, non-party to file bill of actual costs incurred; (6) court to review costs and may appoint expert to help court determine reasonableness; (7) court to enter order directing clerk to pay non-party reasonable sum
Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims
Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic documents
Key Insight: District court overruled plaintiff?s objections to magistrate judge?s order denying sanctions and clarifying that defendant was not required to produce ESI in ?native format? or to produce metadata, where limited evidentiary value of producing ?native format? documents with accompanying metadata was outweighed by overly burdensome task of generating such documents
Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract, unfair trade practices
Electronic Data Involved: APEX files, Lotus Notes email files, and Microsoft Office spreadsheet files
Key Insight: For plaintiff?s and its principals? egregious discovery abuses and bad faith conduct, including intentional spoliation of ESI and willful deception and concealment, magistrate judge set out findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended sanctions in form of adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions representing all of defendants? fees and costs incurred in connection with sanctions motion; district court overruled plaintiff’s objections and adopted magistrate judge?s rulings
Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, RICO violations, negligence, gross negligence and injunctive relief
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, DVD, various ESI
Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s request for order compelling defendants to produce emails and attachments in native electronic format with metadata intact, pending plaintiff’s obtaining a computer expert to advise on the issue; court further allowed plaintiff?s request for additional time to retain expert to analyze ESI produced by defendants, and, if necessary, to designate such expert as trial witness
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, FMLA violations, retaliation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, primarily email and attachments
Key Insight: Where defendant produced ESI as TIFF images and plaintiffs sought order compelling compliance with RFP instruction to ?produce documents in electronic form in the most accessible, searchable, maneuverable and common medium available to [defendant],? arguing that documents must be produced in native file format with metadata or in searchable OCR format, court declined to hold that 2005 Court of Chancery Rules required OCR format or native file format, including metadata, without a particularized showing of need; court found defendant?s proposal to provide searchable ?extracted text? was acceptable compromise and ordered production of ?extracted text? contingent on plaintiffs? agreement to reimburse all of defendant?s related expenses given plaintiffs? failure to timely object to non-searchable TIFF format
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced materials relied on by its expert on DVD in .sav format but defendants alleged it was inaccessible, court held that .sav format was a ?reasonably accessible format? and declined to compel re-production; court?s reasoning included consideration that .sav was format in which expert originally considered the information and evidence that .sav files could be opened by standard ?statistical computer packages?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, “.sav” data
Key Insight: Finding that forensic analysis of defendants? business and home computers was appropriate where plaintiffs presented evidence of specific problems that raised questions regarding accuracy, completeness and authenticity of defendants? email production, court articulated detailed 20-point protocol covering, inter alia, instructions for parties? retention of third party forensic expert, scope of forensic search, privilege review and cost-shifting
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violations of trade secrets and unfair trade practices acts, and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: Work and home computers containing both business and personal information; email
Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for discovery violations related to defendant?s responses to discovery and its inadequate 30(b)(6) deponent, but declined to award spoliation sanction of adverse inference where defendants failed to preserve emails and could not identify blind copy recipients or explain who wrote the emails or to whom they were intended to be sent but where plaintiff failed to show injury resulting from the emails and could not establish that access to the emails or their recipient lists would have been favorable to that showing; court noted, ?the evidence in this case is easily distinguishable from the destroyed evidence in cases where courts have imposed spoliation sanctions?
Nature of Case: False advertising, tortious interference, unfair competition and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: Blind copy email recipients
Key Insight: Where plaintiff alleged that former supervisor wrote memos concerning plaintiff?s alleged deficiencies after plaintiff complained about co-employee?s racist comments, that she never saw the memos and did not sign them as was normal practice with disciplinary memos, and defendant had not preserved hard drive of supervisor?s computer, court did not grant adverse inference as to contents of hard drive but found a material question of fact as to plaintiff?s retaliation claim, and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on retaliation claim
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination and retaliation claims
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, metadata
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.