Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party
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: After conducting de novo review of the matters raised by defendant’s objections to magistrate judge’s May 22, 2007 order, district court adopted magistrate judge’s recommended sanction (i.e., denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and imposing monetary sanctions) and ordered defendant to file answer to complaint within 10 days
Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service
Electronic Data Involved: Databases
Key Insight: Court ordered production of a complete copy of defendant’s Sequel database, and any historical backup copies of database spanning relevant time period, since it was highly relevant to parties’ claims and defenses and defendant had not articulated a valid legal basis for resisting its disclosure; court further ordered that the database was to be treated as “Highly Confidential” pursuant to court’s confidentiality order
Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce highly relevant source code in electronic format subject to protective order in place and agreement by expert that he not share the information with others, including the plaintiffs, notwithstanding prior production in hard copy format
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unfair trade practices
Electronic Data Involved: Source code
Key Insight: Resolving various discovery issues, court found defendants? explanation of document search sufficient and observed that plaintiff could not identify any particular document or category of missing documents based on evidence aside from his own incredulity; court added that, if gaps evolved after defendants’ supplementation of production, plaintiff could revisit the issue
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI
Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based upon defendant?s claimed inability to retrieve the contents of plaintiff?s email account, where defendant had identified several older emails at the time of plaintiff?s discharge (to support its termination of plaintiff) but represented in discovery that its employees’ email accounts were overwritten beginning on the eighth day after a message was either sent or received and that no additional emails existed beyond those produced; court suggested that defendant investigate the matter and be prepared, if requested in discovery, to provide a further explanation of the apparent discrepancy between its ability to retrieve emails at the time of plaintiff?s discharge and its current ability to do so
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ FRCP 60(b) motion for relief from discovery orders, and ordered defendants to comply with prior orders and, among other things, produce certain database in native format, and produce requested email and Excel spreadsheet
Nature of Case: Class action brought by farm workers
Electronic Data Involved: Database, email and spreadsheet
Key Insight: Where defendant asserted that certain data was ?dumped? from its computer system on an ?automatic and periodic basis,? but failed to provide a date or time period when such data was deleted or state whether a diligent effort was made to obtain such information in either electronic or paper format, court found that further discovery was necessary before it could determine whether spoliation sanctions were appropriate and ordered defendant to provide information on when alleged ?data dump? occurred, what information was deleted, and whether backup tapes and/or paper records exist that may provide requested information
Nature of Case: Putative class action
Electronic Data Involved: Information pertaining to the number of prospective class members, including their names and addresses
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel answers to multi-part interrogatory seeking each email address, mobile phone number, internet username, and instant messaging username used by any employee, associate, partner, paralegal, shareholder or other person who worked with defendant and was involved in the provision, referral or advertisement of legal services connected to the disputed service mark or any permutation thereof, finding it unduly broad, burdensome and not limited to the discovery of relevant matters
Nature of Case: Service mark infringement claims
Electronic Data Involved: Email addresses and user names
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.