Key Insight: Court held that costs related to the creation of an electronic database solely for the benefit of Plaintiff?s counsel were not taxable as fees for exemplification
Nature of Case: Securities fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs
Key Insight: Court found that third party failed to establish the reasonableness or necessity of attorney?s fees related to setting up a database to assist in production, including dealing with administrator of that database and thus upheld recommendation against recovery of attorney?s fees; court affirmed recommendation against recovery of costs related to manual review and production that resulted from abandonment of the document database (because of problems with the database) where the Magistrate Judge determined the review was an ?unnecessarily incurred expense, which [the requesting party] had no ability to control or contain;? court adopted recommendation ordering that third party respondents be responsible for half the cost of the database
Key Insight: Court found costs related to ?OCR and metadata extraction? were not recoverable
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: After carefully laying out the law surrounding document requests/productions, court evaluated plaintiff?s motion to compel and, invoking principles of proportionality, granted in part and denied in part the motion
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: To settle disagreement between the parties, court entered discovery order addressing several issues including format of production, categories of ESI presumptively exempt from discovery absent a showing of good cause, and inadvertent production, among others
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced ESI as documents compiled onto just a few PDF files that lacked metadata or searchable text by printing the ESI and then scanning it for production and resisted reproduction on the grounds of undue burden based on the estimated $10,000 cost of doing so, the court found that the ESI was not produced as ordinarily kept or in a reasonably usable format and further declined to find the information was not reasonably accessible or, if it was, that good cause had been shown to compel reproduction
Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, tortious interference with business relationships, fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and replevin
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel inspection of third party?s electronic records where the subpoenas seeking access was overly broad, where the existence of additional responsive information was speculative, where the information sought was cumulative of information obtained elsewhere, and where conducting the requested search would result in a significant burden to a non-party
Nature of Case: Action to recover damages from former employer’s insurers
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where relevant documents were discovered upon forensic examination and evidence indicated they had been modified, but not what the modifications were, the court reasoned that the documents had not been destroyed (because they were discovered on the hard drive) and that Plaintiffs did not dispute defendant?s argument that the modifications could have been the result of merely saving the documents?without making other alterations?and thus declined to grant plaintiffs motion for spoliation sanctions
Nature of Case: Emploment Litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court overruled plaintiff?s objections to an order allowing mirror imaging of its computers where there was sufficient evidence of the likelihood of fraud to warrant such a search, where the request for inspection was timely (and need not have been asked for in the first discovery request because information evidencing possible fraud did not come to light until later), and where the protocol devised adequately protected potentially privileged information
Nature of Case: Action for recovery of attorneys fees
Electronic Data Involved: Forensic inspection of computers
Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff?s claim of spoliation related to video footage of the alleged excessive force where the tape was destroyed pursuant to the jail?s document retention policy after five days and plaintiff?s case was not filed for almost one year and where the court indicated there was no evidence that defendants knew litigation was probable; court did note in footnote, however, that five days is a short retention time and that ?a prudent jail would keep the video of a takedown incident for a longer period of time?
Nature of Case: Claims of excessive force against police officers
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.