Key Insight: Court imposed spoliation sanctions, including an adverse inference, for defendant?s deletion of a ?software library? despite a duty to preserve
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Software library
Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions for alleged failure to preserve ?the actual server and software system? allegedly utilized during the violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where the defendant did not establish the relevance of the server or software system
Nature of Case: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Electronic Data Involved: Server and software system utilized by auction company at time of alleged violation by Defendant
Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference for Defendant?s deletion of the ESI belonging to a former employee where despite a general duty to preserve, the defendant ?could not have reasonably known? of the potential relevance of the at-issue ESI; where the disposal of ESI was pursuant to a routine deletion policy and other communications from the at-issue employee were produced from other custodians ?which suggests that Cisco did not act with a conscious disregard;? and where the relevance of the documents was tentative and the court was ?hard-pressed? to find that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss
Nature of Case: Claims related to software development and licensing agreement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI belonging to former employee
Key Insight: District court adopted in its entirety the recommendation of the magistrate judge that Plaintiff?s amended complaint be dismissed and that her answer to defendants? counterclaims be stricken as a sanction for willful and bad faith spoliation where Plaintiff gave her relevant computers to her brother who then took them to Indonesia where he lived and where this spoliation resulted in severe prejudice to defendants; the opinion also upheld a prior order of the magistrate imposing sanctions in the form of findings detrimental to the plaintiff for ?ongoing and repetitive violations of discovery obligations?; as to both the recommendation adopted and the order upheld, the court granted defendant?s request for attorneys fees
Nature of Case: Alleged violation of restrictive covenant with prior employer
Electronic Data Involved: Two computers
Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs argued that Defendant?s document and preservation efforts were inadequate and briefed ?at long length several document production errors, general complications and litigation hold mishandling,? including incorrect volume estimates of documents produced by search terms, date discrepancies in metadata, and corrupt emails (among others) the court noted that Plaintiffs had not obtained a court order against Defendant or attempted to show that it acted in bad faith and found that the allegations did not rise to a level justifying appointment of an outside third party ediscovery auditor, but granted Plaintiffs? motion for depositions of certain document custodians regarding document production issues; court denied motion to require Defendant to recover all documents deleted by certain custodians, including from backup tapes, where the court found that Defendant ?carried out its duty to preserve documents in a manner commensurate with the likely scope and role of [Defendant?s] participation in future litigation? and noted that reasonable efforts do not require the preservation of ?every single scrap of paper?
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for default judgment for alleged spoliation of ?documents pertaining to his non-selections? (in hiring) where Plaintiff failed to present ?clear and convincing evidence? that the ?abusive behavior? occurred and failed to show why a lesser sanction would not sufficiently punish or deter Defendant?s behavior; court also addressed Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference as to several specific instances of spoliation and provided individual analysis for each piece of evidence and ultimately denied the adverse inference as to all evidence for reasons including the failure to establish that any documents were in fact destroyed and the court?s determination that an adverse inference would not rebut Defendant?s ?legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons? for the alleged adverse employment actions
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ?Documents related to the hiring process for positions he was denied?
Key Insight: Where a defendant negligently ?lost? his cellular phone and thus the text messages on it despite a duty to preserve, the court ordered that plaintiffs would be permitted to introduce evidence at trial of defendants? failure to preserve and to argue whatever inference they hoped the jury would draw, but defendants would be allowed to present an explanation and argue that no adverse inference should be drawn
Nature of Case: Antitrust and related claims; theft of trade secrets; intentional interference with a prospective business
Electronic Data Involved: Text messages
Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for former employer?s spoliation of a tape containing a secretly recorded conversation ?which in part? led to Plaintiff?s termination, the court found that the tape was relevant, that Defendant had an obligation to preserve it (citing the fact that ?it knew that litigation was imminent? and a federal statute requiring the preservation of employment records concerning a terminated employee for 1 year from the date of termination), and that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the spoliation; in concluding that sanctions were warranted, court noted Defendant?s four month delay in issuing a litigation hold and indicated that ?[a]fter the duty to preserve attaches, the failure to collect taped recording from a key player is grossly negligent or willful?; what specific sanction would be imposed was not determined
Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Tape of secretly recorded conversation
Key Insight: Magistrate judge addressed accusations of spoliation and violation of court orders and found that monetary sanctions were appropriate for defendants? spoliation of emails which were deleted (as evidenced by forensic investigation) after the duty of preservation arose but declined to find spoliation had occurred as to defendants? laptops or external storage devices where Plaintiff presented little more than evidence of Defendants? lack of credibility; magistrate judge imposed sanctions for violation of court?s orders where Defendants made unilateral decisions not to produce certain electronic devices but gave numerous assurances that everything had been produced; magistrate judge found Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defendants? contempt of the court?s discovery orders and preliminary injunction order and certified certain underlying facts for consideration by the District Court
Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Copyright Act, PA Wiretap Act, state trade secret law, duty of loyalty
Electronic Data Involved: Email, storage devices (iPad, iPhone, thumb drives), personal computers
Key Insight: Upon a motion to clarify regarding Plaintiff?s prior motion for sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve backup tapes, the court confirmed that Plaintiff could recover attorney?s fees and expenses ?reasonably incurred as a result of the failure to preserve backup tapes and the resulting discovery? (even where the follow-up discovery necessitated by the failure to preserve was not fruitful), but made clear that the recovery would be limited and that fees and expenses related to the filing and briefing of the motion for sanctions would not be awarded
Nature of Case: Defamation
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.