Key Insight: In an opinion addressing a number of discovery issues, the court declined to compel production of email in native format where defendant provided a ?reasonable explanation? for why it chose to produce in hard copy, namely, because ?they could more easily be reviewed for responsiveness and privilege?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions against remaining defendant where defendant was not responsible for the destruction of the relevant servers and the district court thus ?balanced the lack of any assertion of wrongdoing by [defendant] with the harm caused to [plaintiff?s] claims? and where Ohio law provided a remedy for a party injured by another party?s spoliation of evidence, namely a claim for the tort of spoliation (which plaintiff apparently asserted against the actual spoliating party)
Nature of Case: Copyright/trade secret infringement, intentional spoliation
Electronic Data Involved: Servers containing relevant ESI
Key Insight: Finding ?there [was] no evidence that the electronic data was ever created, much less?discarded?, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where defendant presented evidence that the relevant GPS system had to be activated in order to record data and that the system was not activated on the date of the accident, and where no regulation or law required the GPS be activated or recording
Nature of Case: Personal Injury
Electronic Data Involved: GPS data
Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations
Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy
Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery
Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication
Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered nothing more than speculation regarding defendants? alleged intentional or grossly negligent spoliation of metadata and where defendant asserted that before destroying the server at issue, the information thereon was migrated and no metadata was knowingly changed, the court declined ?to infer from the absence of metadata that such evidence would have been favorable to Plaintiff?s claims?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records of phone calls, metadata
Key Insight: Metadata is subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act
Nature of Case: Public Disclosure Act
Electronic Data Involved: Metadata
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for leave to seek discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference for the purpose of identifying the unknown Doe defendants by allowing plaintiff to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the relevant Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but required the ISPs to provide written notice to the subscribers in question to provide them an opportunity to move to quash
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Where defendant?s multiple attempts at starting plaintiff?s car following the underlying accident resulted in multiple ?blocks? of data being overwritten, the court denied sanctions absent evidence that the loss was intentional (where the imposition of sanctions required a showing of bad faith) and because the relevant ?event? data was also recorded in alternative source that was fully preserved and plaintiff offered no evidence that the relevant data was recorded only to the lost data blocks and not the available alternative source
Nature of Case: Personal injury/product liability
Electronic Data Involved: Black box data from automobile
Key Insight: Court quashed order directing production of defendant?s source code where, despite claiming misappropriation of its trade secret, plaintiff declined to produce its own source code and thus ?neither identified with reasonable particularity the nature of its claimed trade secret nor established that it exists? and was therefore not entitled to the source code it sought from the defendant
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secret
Electronic Data Involved: Source code
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.