Key Insight: Court found attorney?s duty to preserve was triggered upon receipt of correspondence terminating her representation but withheld judgment on issue of spoliation until hearing could be held
Nature of Case: Legal Malpractice
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, computers
Key Insight: Where, despite defendant?s assertion of a privacy interest in his and his wife?s (a non-party) electronic devices (computers and smartphone) and phone records, the trial court failed to conduct a proper balancing test before granting Plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection and production of the records, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion, that the invocation of a privacy right should have triggered analysis of the relevant balancing test, and that the wife?s non-party status was a factor for consideration, and vacated the trial court?s order and remanded for further consideration
Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Personal computers, smartphone
Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought to discover whether flash drives containing its sensitive information had been accessed by defendant since he started working for his new employer and also sought production of all relevant information contained on defendant?s laptop, the court indicated that Plaintiff?s expert would be allowed to image and search defendant?s laptop to determine if the flash drives had been accessed and to produce to Plaintiff any ?actual files? from those drives determined to be on defendant?s computer without first allowing defendant to conduct a review for relevance or privilege; as to other relevant documents found on the laptop which were not taken from the at-issue flash drives, the court ordered that any keyword hits be provided to defendant to review before production; to assuage concerns that relevant information would be withheld, court ordered defendant to prepare a log of any documents withheld on relevance grounds to allow the parties to have ?reasoned discussions? regarding those withholdings
Nature of Case: Breach of non-compete agreement, misappropriation of proprietary information
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where Defendant indicated that historical data was unavailable because it had been stored on magnetic tapes that could only be accessed with outdated technology that had been disassembled (VAX computer) and that the tapes had degraded and the information could not be retrieved, the court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery related to the ?failure to preserve or the destruction? of the at-issue data and ordered Defendant to produce a 30(b)(6) designee and to produce all relevant documents related to the ?preservation, failure to preserve and/or destruction? of the historical data and technology
Nature of Case: Groundwater contamination
Electronic Data Involved: Magnetic tapes, VAX computer
Key Insight: Where Defendant preserved a portion of the relevant surveillance video following Plaintiff?s fall but, upon being ordered to preserve substantially more, could not comply because the video had been automatically overwritten by that time and could not be recovered, the court declined to impose an adverse inference absent evidence of a culpable mindset
Nature of Case: Premises liability (slip and fall)
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions related to automatic deletion of email backups where no email from the time of Plaintiff?s separation from the defendant existed on that system because of the passage of time and where the automatic deletions did not affect any emails saved on individual employees? computers – who had been instructed to preserve relevant information; court also declined to impose sanctions for the destruction of files on former employees? computers where Defendant claimed the computers contained no relevant information that had not already been produced and where the repurposing of the computers was apparently undertaken in good faith; upholding magistrate judge?s prior discovery orders, court noted the magistrate judge?s recognition that although some of the custodians from which plaintiff sought discovery may have relevant information, ?a few pointed questions in a deposition were less burdensome than grasping at the periphery by reviewing thousands or tens of thousands of e-mails in the hope of discovering a limited number of interactions that might, together, indicate something about whether discrimination played a role in the actions at the center of this case?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, computer files of former employees
Key Insight: Court denied third party’s request for return of allegedly privileged letters between third party and its patent lawyer because third party did not promptly take reasonable steps to rectify the error when it sent a clawback letter 49 days after it discovered the disclosure of at least one of the disputed documents during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; court rejected third party?s excuses and stated that third party ?should have recalled the document that was used in the deposition immediately after the deposition and then conducted a more thorough and timely investigation into the rest of the production after the initial clawback request?
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Nine attorney letters totaling approximately 58 pages
Key Insight: Finding defendants? effort to respond to discovery inadequate in various respects, court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendants: (1) to provide detailed listing of all documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery and in defendants’ possession, custody or control as of date of discovery requests, but which were not produced because defendants destroyed, deleted, sold, shredded or otherwise discarded them, along with a description of how and when defendants lost control or possession of such information, (2) to further search for and respond to discovery, produce any additional discovery located, and explain by written affidavit, as to each separate document request, the efforts made to locate responsive documents, and (3) to provide a sworn affidavit outlining whether a litigation hold was put in place, persons to whom litigation hold letter was sent, directions for preservation, sources identified for search, search terms used and efforts to ensure compliance with litigation hold; court further faulted defendants? production of one large PDF that contained no metadata, no indication of parent-child document relationship, and no indication as to the beginning and end of each document, and ordered defendants to produce responsive information in a manner that complied with the Federal Rules
Nature of Case: Franchise dispute involving claims for violation of non-compete clause, misappropriation of trade secrets and license marks, and other claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied petition for mandamus relief from order compelling re-production of ESI in native format with metadata where Waste Management failed to establish that the order would result in undue burden, among other things; in its analysis of undue burden, the court concluded that a request for production in a ?reasonable manner? was a sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a party ?specify the form? in which ESI should be produced (rule 196.4) and that the estimated expense of $5,500.00 to accomplish reproduction did not pose an undue burden and reasoned, in part, that the order was not unduly burdensome because of Waste Management?s ?conscious decision? to remove metadata from the original production; opinion also addressed Waste Management?s claim that the matters to be disclosed included trade secrets, its claim that the order was overbroad, issues related to the preservation of claims for appeal, and the question of whether Waste Management?s arguments related to cost allocation could adequately be addressed on appeal
Nature of Case: Petition for writ of mandamus
Key Insight: Court found costs associated with converting information into the agreed-upon format and electronically Bates stamping were analogous to copying costs and therefore taxable and thus allowed recovery of such costs over Defendant?s objection
Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.