Key Insight: After granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants, court retained ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; court conducted seven-day evidentiary hearing on the motion, ultimately rejecting plaintiff’s various claims of spoliation
Nature of Case: Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act claims
Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer hard drives
Key Insight: Although Defendant complied with Rule 34 by producing documents as maintained in the usual course of business with a table of contents, metadata, and text search capability, the court found that the responses were ?deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the Plaintiffs,? and that Defendant must ?indicate whether the documents it produced are actually responsive,? reasoning that Plaintiff ?should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Applying relevant factors identified in In re Asia Global Crossing Ltd., 322 B.R. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), court concluded that consultant?s use of workplace email did not waive privilege where, although the factors were evenly split, there was no evidence that the employee actually monitored employees? emails and because of the ?importance of the attorney-client privilege?
Nature of Case: Plaintiffs claim defendants colluded to “avoid poaching each other’s employees and to stabilize their compensation packages.”
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court found that ?costs of converting the documents in the format agreed upon by the parties are properly taxable? but that ?metadata extraction? could not be ?properly analogized to making copies and that such costs were not taxable; where costs associated with metadata extraction were not identified separately from ?production copying, file conversion, and metadata extraction? on invoices, court reduced requested costs by one third
Nature of Case: Patent Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs for electronic discovery
Key Insight: In dispute over search terms and the appropriate date range for discovery, court cited Defendant?s declarations showing that Plaintiffs? proposed terms would result in a far greater volume of ESI to be reviewed and would triple the costs of production and found ?no reason? not to use Defendant?s proposed terms and reasoned that ?no search is ever perfect,? but that Defendant?s terms would ?likely yield sufficient documents?; date range was restricted to time period of the date of the contract to the present rather than Plaintiffs? proposal to begin two years before the agreement was formed
Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for alleged fabrication of evidence and violation of the court’s order to produce certain hardware (computers, hard drives) related to the alleged fabrication but denied sanctions where Defendant consistently claimed he had no additional hardware to be produced and consistently stuck with his explanations related to the creation of the allegedly fabricated documents and surrounding circumstances; regarding fabrication, court explained that ?Discrepancies and inconsistencies without more, however, do not necessarily fabrication make.?; as to both spoliation and fabrication court indicated it would be up to the jury to decide who to believe
Nature of Case: Claims related to loan repayment and whether loan to defendant was forgiven in “walk-away” agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drives
Key Insight: Upon Defendant?s motion to compel production of Plaintiffs? Facebook information/content, the court rejected Plaintiffs? claims that the request violated their right to privacy and the privacy rights of their Facebook ?friends? who had posted on their walls or tagged them in photographs, and ordered the plaintiffs to produce material concerning their claimed injuries and their effects
Nature of Case: Personal Injury
Electronic Data Involved: Facebook
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff was previously sanctioned for violating the stipulated protective order when Plaintiff?s President viewed Defendant?s source code; where Plaintiff?s president later deleted evidence related to his violation of the stipulated protective order despite a duty to preserve (arising from Defendant?s requests for preservation and two court orders requiring the same), made no effort to preserve the other contents of his laptop, and made ?inconsistent representations to the court?; and where a second employee claimed he was not notified of his preservation obligations and thus wiped the contents of his laptop (at a ?suspicious? time), including a relevant power point, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions absent a showing of prejudice and upon its determination that the orders requiring preservation were arguably ambiguous (?insofar as they required Plaintiff to preserve evidence while at the same time ordering Plaintiff to return discs and delete source code, as Defendants requested?) but did order a monetary award of reasonable expenses that the defendants incurred in taking expedited discovery regarding the source code violation and indicated that ?[t]he court may well allow? Plaintiff?s President?s credibility to be impeached at trial regarding his violation of the protective order
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of laptop(s)
Key Insight: Addressing taxable costs related to electronic discovery, the court agreed with the reasoning in prior case law that ?costs for electronic .TIFF and .PFD conversion and OCR of documents produced in discovery were permissible exemplification costs, but pre-production document collection and processing costs were not? and concluded that ?database hosting costs separate from .TIFF and OCR conversion, Bates stamping, load file and other physical media generation are non-compensable ??
Nature of Case: Patent litigation
Electronic Data Involved: taxable costs
Key Insight: Where defendants propounded 242 requests for documents, trial court declined to require FDIC to review thousands of documents ?to weed out a presumably small subset of irrelevant materials,? or to organize its Phase II production according to defendants? numerous discovery requests; court granted in part and denied in part the parties? respective motions concerning search terms to be used to identify responsive material, and ruled that FDIC would bear the costs of production as they arose subject to the possibility that the court may later require contribution from the defendants; court further directed FDIC to submit to the court a revised proposed ESI protocol
Nature of Case: Receiver sued former directors and officers of bank to recover approximately $114 million in losses bank suffered on 20 commercial real estate loans
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.