Key Insight: Court granted motion for preliminary injunction, including injunction against destruction of evidence related to plaintiff’s claims, including computers
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Despite testimony that the methods utilized to copy surveillance tape could reduce the image?s fine detail and the State?s failure to comply with a court order to produce the original of the surveillance tape because it had been lost, the trial court did not err in failing to grant defendant a new trial where a duplicate tape is admissible to the same extent as the original and where there was no evidence of bad faith in the loss of the tape; in so deciding, court also cited testimony that defendant did not objet
Nature of Case: Criminal
Electronic Data Involved: Copy of original surveillance tape
Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions arising from plaintiff?s alleged spoliation of ?pack data? (related to the number of tomatoes picked and packaged) where the alleged spoliation consisted of plaintiff?s entry of additional information to the ?pack data? following commencement of litigation but where the court found that no spoliation had occurred because the source of the newly added information was preserved, because the data was ?added as opposed to changed,? and because defendant had the right of cross examination at trial
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? request for production sought both data and summaries of data, court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of the requested data but found defendants were not required to compile or summarize information in their response (?[A] request for production cannot require a responding party to compile and summarize.?); court rejected defendant?s argument that production of the requested data would be unreasonably burdensome without reciprocal productions from plaintiff finding ?[a] party is not excused from making disclosures because ?another party has not made it disclosures.??
Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data from defendant’s database(s)
Key Insight: Where a party to the litigation forwarded an email from his attorney to a third party, the court ruled that the attorney-client privilege had been waived because there was no shared legal interest between the litigant and the third party and thus the common interest doctrine did not apply but held that the protection provided by the work product doctrine had not been waived where the email was forwarded to ?a nonadversary third party? and where there was no basis for finding it likely that the third party would not keep the email confidential
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email
In re Global Power Equip. Group, Inc., 418 B.R. 833 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009)
Upon a motion to compel production of documents from claimant, a foreign corporation, the court found the documents at issue to be within the control of the claimant and, applying the “comity analysis” as articulated by the United States Supreme Court, determined that the contested matter “should and shall be conducted under the Federal Rules and not under the Hague Evidence Convention.” Accordingly, the motion to compel was granted and claimant was ordered to comply with the contested discovery requests “in accordance with the Federal Rules.”
Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2009)
In April 2006, plaintiff Swofford was shot seven times, on his own property, by two deputies in pursuit of two burglary suspects. Plaintiffs brought suit against the sheriff in his official capacity and against the deputies individually. In August 2006, plaintiffs’ counsel sent the first of two letters requesting the preservation of relevant evidence. In February 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a second preservation letter and a notice of claim as required by Florida statute. Defendants did not deny receipt of these letters, but evidence was nonetheless destroyed.
Despite defendants’ receipt of the letters, no litigation holds were ever issued. Rather, the letters were forwarded to six senior employees of the Seminole Country Sherriff’s Office (“SCSO”), including named defendant Sherriff Eslinger. No preservation instructions were provided to the deputies involved in the shooting.
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009)
In an en banc opinion, the Supreme Court of Arizona vacated (in part) an opinion from the Court of Appeals and held that “if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.” [Emphasis added.]
Peschel v. City of Missoula, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Mont. 2009)
In this case arising from defendant’s claims that he was wrongfully arrested and that the officers used excessive force, among other things, defendant sought sanctions for the city’s failure to preserve the video of the arrest that was recorded by a camera in one of the officer’s cars. Finding that the video was lost as a result of the city’s recklessness, the court granted defendant’s motion for sanctions and “designat[ed], for purposes of the case, that the arresting officers used unreasonable force to effect the arrest of [defendant].”
Mirbeau Geneva Lake, LLC v. City of Lake Geneva, 2009 3347101 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2009)
In this litigation over the attempted development of land in the City of Lake Geneva, plaintiff sought to compel production of all of defendants’ “computers and other electronic storage devices” for forensic examination. In support of the motion, plaintiff argued that defendants’ offer to produce emails in “paper form” was insufficient and that defendants were not properly preserving data for production. Noting plaintiff’s failure to make a sufficient showing in favor of such production and the parties’ failure to cooperate to reach agreement on the issues presented, the court denied plaintiff’s motion.
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.