Key Insight: Seventh Circuit upheld trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as sanction for flagrant discovery misconduct
Nature of Case: Dealerships sued for breach of contract and other claims
Electronic Data Involved: Financial data
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, additional depositions and for an order compelling production of electronic data and signal plans in light of plaintiffs’ failure to diligently pursue such requests and failure to establish need for additional discovery at late stage of litigation; court granted plaintiffs opportunity to show that motion was substantially justified and deferred consideration of defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing motion
Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile
Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system
Key Insight: Where parties submitted competing expert testimony in support of and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court also considered and ruled upon parties’ cross-motions to exclude their opponent’s computer forensics expert under FRE 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse
Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and USB flash-drive device
Key Insight: Where court found that defendants may not have taken adequate steps to preserve emails through a backup process but followed the company’s standard procedures, and if anything, there was negligence derived from lax electronic document maintenance procedures, and that plaintiff?s counsel, at most, may have been lax in that inadequate direction and oversight was given to associate to guide her search for relevant and responsive emails, court concluded that, while all parties were remiss in fulfilling their discovery obligations, there was no evidence of ?bad faith? on the part of either party to warrant an instruction on spoliation and denied parties’ competing sanctions motions
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, laptops
Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?
Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements
Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server
Key Insight: Appellate court upheld order of contempt and declined to expand protective order to keep confidential names and contact information of persons involved in falling merchandise accidents where defendant?s challenges of discovery rulings resulted in five year delay, were not in good faith, and information sought to be protected was not the sort that should be covered by a protective order
Nature of Case: Personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish existence or relevance of emails allegedly spoliated or that defendants alleged abuses resulted from willful misconduct or gross negligence, trial court declined to impose sanctions; court of appeals affirmed
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, promissory estoppel, interference with a contract
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court imposed significant monetary sanction upon finding that defendant violated both the letter and spirit of discovery rules where defendant deliberately concealed existence of electronically stored information by making repeated misrepresentations regarding completeness of production and the existence of additional information and for defendant?s failure to produce the necessary privilege log
Nature of Case: Bad faith failure to defend or indemnify
Electronic Data Involved: Notes made in electronically stored case file
Key Insight: Appellate court reversed trial court?s denial of motion to dismiss complaint as sanction for spoliation, and granted motion to dismiss, where defendant’s expert found that numerous files, images, and folders, as well as some history of the plaintiff’s internet usage had been deleted between date defendant demanded inspection of plaintiff’s computer and date of inspection, and evidence showed that defendant suffered severe prejudice
Nature of Case: Defamation
Electronic Data Involved: Files on plaintiff’s home computer
Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.