Key Insight: Plaintiff requested information related to outside counsel’s evaluation of claims. Court granted, but limited original request.
Nature of Case: Insurance breach of contract and bad faith
Electronic Data Involved: Various documents related to claims investigations; primarily related to outside counsel evaluations.
Keywords: scope; outside counsel; evaluation of claim
Key Insight: proportionality
Nature of Case: class action
Electronic Data Involved: backup tapes
Keywords: undue burden, statistical sampling, restoration, reasonably accessible, cooperation, interrogatory, relevance
Key Insight: Can documents be compelled to be produced in multiple formats, or in a certain specified format?
Nature of Case: Employment
Electronic Data Involved: Business documents, personnel files
Keywords: Multiple formats, native format
Key Insight: Interrogatories asking for evidence proving or disproving engagement in interstate commerce are improper due to requesting conclusions of law.
Nature of Case: fair labor standards act violations
Keywords: interstate commerce
Key Insight: ordered to produce original emails between parties with metadata not versions forwarded to law office
Nature of Case: breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: emails and metadata
Keywords: farm sale, email metadata
Key Insight: Defendants request for social media posts was too broad and needed to be even more specifically directed to claims in case.
Nature of Case: personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: Social Media Posts
Keywords: social media; scope
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel inspection of Defendant?s personal computer that was utilized for business where Plaintiff established that relevant information was likely stored there, where the information was potentially ?critical? to Plaintiff?s case (regarding whether Defendant had utilized Plaintiff?s confidential information), where there was ?no other avenue? to obtain the requested discovery, where the costs did not appear substantial, where Plaintiff?s counsel made a good faith effort at alternative resolutions before brining the motion, and?notably?where Defendant had previously agreed to the inspection (but later objected); court also granted access to Defendant?s email accounts, including disclosure of his passwords; as to both repositories, court ordered the parties? to agree on a search protocol/search terms that included allowing Defendant to review the results of the search prior to production
Nature of Case: Defendant’s alleged use of Plaintiff’s confidential files to underbid Plaintiff on various projects
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: Where counsel for defendant indicated that relevant emails were not available because they were no longer retained in accordance with a document retention policy requiring the maintenance of emails for only 30 days and where no litigation hold was in place because Defendant was relying on its existing document retention policy because a litigation hold would be overly burdensome, court reasoned that ?the deletion of some responsive emails does not absolve Defendant of its obligation to thoroughly search for still-extant ESI? and ordered production of ?full and adequate responses to discovery? and also ordered Defendant to implement a litigation hold to preclude potential deletion of relevant information
Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of all emails sent to or from any of the Plaintiffs through a Percheron account. The Court found the emails were relevant because they may shed light on informal work policies, hours worked, and serve as a potential cross-reference to the other records kept by Defendant. Analyzing proportionality, the Court concluded that the importance of the issues (to the Plaintiffs), the amount in controversy (alleged to be ?in excess of several million dollars?), the resources of the parties, the parties? relative access to the information and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues weighed in favor of Plaintiffs/production. Regarding whether the burden of discovery outweighed the benefit, the Court acknowledged Defendant?s claim that the review ?would likely cost $735,000-$798,964 and take a team of 20 attorneys 12 weeks to complete,? but reasoned that the Court?s refusal to compel production of certain email categories would lessen the estimated costs and that Defendant?s inability to provide certain data had caused Plaintiffs to have to ?puzzle together damages? and concluded that the request did not ?run afoul? of proportionality. The court also relied on Defendants prior agreement to produce the emails. Addressing Plaintiffs? motion to compel information regarding Defendant?s preservation efforts, the court ordered production of the names of those that received litigation holds and related information, but declined to order the litigation holds themselves.
Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Information re: litigation hold notices
Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to compel production of emails from Plaintiff?s former employee where Plaintiff?s initial production included some communications from the at-issue employee, where Plaintiff had already conducted a second search that did not yield additional documents, where the emails of the former employee had been moved off of active servers thus requiring the initiation of disaster recovery protocols to conduct an additional search, and where the emails of other parties to the potentially relevant communications remained on the active servers and had also been searched; court also noted that Defendant had deposed the former employee for 6 hours
Electronic Data Involved: Email of former employee
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.