Key Insight: Further to its December 20, 2006 order granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, 2006 WL 3759914, court awarded plaintiff $134,373 representing reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including fees of computer forensics expert) incurred because of defendant’s discovery misconduct
Nature of Case: Insurance fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives
Key Insight: Court found that no adverse inference was warranted where plaintiff preserved driver logs and repair documents for the requisite amount of time provided in applicable federal regulations, then discarded them in accordance with its standard business practices, since other uncontroverted evidence existed which rebutted the requested adverse inference
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Driver logs and repair records for tractor and trailer involved in accident
Key Insight: Where plaintiff submitted photographs of defendant?s computers showing that hard drive from one computer had been tampered with and that hard drives for other computers were missing altogether, and defendants did not oppose substance of sanctions motion, court found that plaintiff had established the four requirements necessary for spoliation inference: (1) evidence in question was within the party’s control; (2) there was actual suppression or withholding of the evidence; (3) evidence destroyed or withheld was relevant to claims or defenses; and (4) it was reasonably foreseeable that evidence would later be discoverable
Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives
Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction not warranted for defendant’s routine destruction of surveillance videotapes created on date of incident; defendant presented evidence that there was no videotape that depicted the subject area where the incident occurred and plaintiff did not show that destroyed videotapes contained any images or information relevant to any issue at trial
Nature of Case: Personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotapes
Key Insight: Where plaintiff Nevada admitted its negligence in failing to institute a litigation hold which resulted in the loss of information (which the court stated was ?the same as destroying them?) and where the loss was prejudicial to the defendants because of their inability to discovery ?marginalia or annotations? or introduce Nevada?s copies of the documents, among other things, the court granted defendants? request to establish certain facts for purposes of the litigation
Nature of Case: Claims that defendants defrauded Nevada by manipulating average wholesale prices of prescription drugs
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: In order issued after parties’ status hearing on production of electronic documents, court recounted history of discovery conferences and orders addressing defendants’ production, including court’s prior order directing defendants to produce all emails tagged by the search term “transfer price” whether deemed relevant or not after completing a privilege review, and concluded that, since plaintiffs had not shown that need for further electronic discovery outweighed burdens and costs of retrieving and producing such information, and had not shown that defendants were withholding or ?cherry picking? relevant emails, plaintiffs would bear the costs of all additional email searches, if any
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to organize and label documents to correspond with discovery requests, or provide an index, and to submit declarations by qualified computer technicians or forensic experts setting forth specific details of any lost or destroyed data or damaged hard drives; court reserved the option to appoint a neutral computer forensic expert as a special master to investigate and assess any claim by defendants that their computer servers or hard drives were damaged during the seizures or that electronic records were lost or destroyed
Nature of Case: Infringement litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents, hard drives
Key Insight: Overruling plaintiff’s objection that magistrate judge’s sanctions order did not go far enough and should have required defendant to retain a computer forensic expert to examine surveillance equipment to determine whether deleted images were recoverable, court found that order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law since defendant had produced affidavit of individual who personally installed and serviced the surveillance system who stated that he inspected the surveillance data system and determined that the images were not recoverable
Nature of Case: Customer asserted federal civil rights claims arising from his detention by store security guards
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video
Key Insight: Where witness testified at his deposition that he did not recall receiving plaintiff?s litigation hold memorandum and had deleted unspecified email to ?clean up,? and plaintiff subsequently conducted forensic search of deponent?s computer hard drive, recovered available deleted emails and stated it would produce responsive email not previously produced, court found that defendant failed to establish two necessary elements of spoliation, since evidence was insufficient to show there were any ?missing? emails that would constitute “evidence,” or that any of the “missing evidence” was crucial to defendant’s claims or defenses
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on city’s overwriting of backup tapes and failure to preserve computer’s hard drive, where subject computer had been reassigned and its hard drive re-imaged before discovery requests were served, missing evidence was not crucial to plaintiff’s claims, and destruction of the material was not done in bad faith
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive and backup tapes
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.