Key Insight: Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate’s discovery rulings, concluding that absence of particular email from production did not mean that expert had intentionally hidden or destroyed it, particularly when expert was not listed as a recipient and testified that he did not recall receiving it
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court ordered that, to the extent the information kept in database was not duplicative of hard copy complaints produced, defendants must produce customer dispute information (including related information dealing with investigations and results) available through defendants’ computer databases dealing with disputes by certain consumers
Nature of Case: Breach of indemnification agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Databases used to manage customer accounts
Key Insight: Where defendant had not previously understood that its obligation to search for responsive documents extended to email accounts, but counsel had taken steps to rectify the situation, court denied plaintiff?s demand that defendant be compelled to produce an affidavit describing its document search and collection processes, and instead ordered defendant to provide a verified statement signed by a responsible corporate official that defendant made a good faith search for responsive material and that all responsive, non-privileged documents were produced
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Although plaintiff was free to pursue discovery of archived emails on obsolete email system, the extent to which those emails were discoverable and the allocation of costs to restore them would require further analysis; court directed plaintiff to notify the court if she intended to pursue the archived email
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Archived email from obsolete email system
Key Insight: Deciding there should be a presumption in favor of finding inadvertence, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of privileged documents “recalled” by defendant under stipulated inadvertent production provision; court further advised that (1) production of documents without any privilege review whatsoever is not an inadvertent, but rather a purposeful, act unless the parties had an agreement otherwise; and (2) the purpose of the parties’ inadvertent production provision was not to allow the producing party to consciously change its mind post-production about whether or not to claim the privilege
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email
Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to produce American College of Radiology reports during certain time frame, to produce all information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, their computer systems, and, if requested by the United States, to make available for deposition persons with knowledge of the computer system maintained by hospital during certain time frame
Nature of Case: Medical malpractice
Electronic Data Involved: All information pertaining to plaintiff contained in, or retrievable from, defendants’ computer systems
Key Insight: Court narrowed scope of subpoena and ordered plaintiff and third party to negotiate a reasonable “sample” protocol and search protocol to expedite production, limit the burden and perhaps develop information to return to court to refine the court’s ruling
Nature of Case: Securities class action
Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reject defendant’s attorney-client privilege and work product claims, finding that crime/fraud exception did not apply, that defendant had not waived privilege, and that plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial need for the material; court also noted that defendant had previously been sanctioned for the discovery conduct complained of and that it would be inappropriate to sanction defendant again for the very same conduct
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of discovery responses and email claimed to be privileged
Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s request for “electronic discovery of plaintiff’s attorneys’ computers” to determine whether affidavit of service of reply brief was backdated
Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s counsel’s computers
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce (among other things) computer generated employee profiles of all its employees in North Carolina from 1995 to the present, finding that producing records of over 1,000 employees who were not similarly situated to plaintiff would be unduly burdensome and oppressive and was unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Computer generated employee profiles
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.