Key Insight: Providing a document index is not overly burdensome. Production of metadata cannot be compelled without showing that metadata is relevant..
Nature of Case: violation of civil rights as a landowner
Electronic Data Involved: metadata, electronically stored data, document index
Keywords: adequacy of production, metadata relevancy
Key Insight: confidential settlement information in documents requested
Nature of Case: Negligence and breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: communications between Amex Nooter and IOSHA
Keywords: Confidential Settlement information, motion to compel, impeachment
Key Insight: Discovery, metadata associated with electronic information
Nature of Case: Modification of the Court Order – Motion to Compel
Electronic Data Involved: Court order granted, plaintiff is not required to produce metadata.
Keywords: metadata, electronic information, request for production of documents, order
Key Insight: forensic imaging of USB drive of handwritten notes and reopening of deposition for questioning regarding the notes
Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: handwritten notes from plantiff
Keywords: delaying tactics, reopening deposition, disclosure of evidence at deposition, relevancy
Key Insight: are the defendants acting in bad faith by not confirming that evidence doesn’t exist or was it not preserved, in that case is it sanctionable
Nature of Case: violation of Securities act, violation of the exchange act and rule 10b-5, unregistered securities offerings
Electronic Data Involved: “back office data” information as to whether defendants explored public offering
Keywords: bad faith, sanctions, spoliation, public offering
Key Insight: personnel files are not maintained by the custodian, they are maintained by HR and contain personal information and are not discoverable
Nature of Case: products liability
Electronic Data Involved: employee personnel files of people that plaintiffs want to depose
Keywords: discoverability, relevancy, personnel files
Key Insight: if sanctions can be granted for inconsistent and incomplete response from opposing party
Nature of Case: violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
Electronic Data Involved: initial interrogatories and verifications
Keywords: spoliation, sanctions, default judgment, defunct business, unreachable party
Key Insight: Finding plaintiff responsible for his prior counsel?s deficient Facebook production, saying he ?voluntarily chose his prior counsel and cannot avoid the consequences for his attorney?s discovery failures? and also responsible for his current counsel?s deficient Twitter production, district court granted Motion for Sanctions filed by defendants in part and ordered plaintiff to produce the entirety of his Twitter profile with redactions for privilege and relevance and to produce a log for any social networking information withheld and to pay the reasonable expenses and attorney?s fees associate with the discovery dispute.
Nature of Case: Civil Rights
Electronic Data Involved: Social media postings
Key Insight: Court concluded non-party?s objections to the at-issue subpoena were subject to Rule 34 requirements for objections and, addressing the non-party?s claims of overbreadth and burden, modified the subpoena upon finding that the document requests were ?facially overbroad and pose[d] an undue burden? because they called for the production of ?apparently every document? related to the making of the at-issue movie
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Third party discovery, including ESI
Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions where plaintiff?s failure to preserve emails, and its failure to implement any uniform or centralized plan to preserve data or the various devices used by the key players in the transaction, demonstrated gross negligence which gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated documents were relevant, but plaintiff rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the defenses available to defendant all necessarily turned on communications to or with them, not plaintiff?s internal communications.
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.