Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of documents by non-party pursuant to subpoena where court determined non-party did not have control of the documents requested because such documents were maintained by foreign parent company and non-party did not have access to them in the ordinary course of business
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code
Key Insight: Court of appeals vacated (in part) judgment of trial court and ruled former statute ?does not exempt disclosure of personal email addresses used by elected officials to discuss city business? and that plaintiff was entitled to the requested email messages without the personal email addresses redacted; court also held that there was no express obligation to produce email records in electronic format, but that statutory duty to ?provide the fullest assistance? obligated trial court to consider reasonableness and feasibility of electronic production on remand; redacted emails need not be scanned and produced electronically
Nature of Case: Complaint pursuant to Public Disclosure Act
Electronic Data Involved: Email addresses, emails
Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of ?information that is located in the unallocated or deleted space? of the relevant hard drive where defendant was in possession of ?precisely the same images of the hard drives? that the plaintiff possessed, where plaintiff was not in possession, custody, or control of information not already produced to defendant, and where ?Defendant [was] just as capable as the Government is of extracting the information for trial.?
Nature of Case: Criminal
Electronic Data Involved: Data from unallocated space on hard drive
Key Insight: Where government agency objected to defendants? subpoena for the production of documents previously produced in a separate litigation on grounds of undue burden and cost based on the assertion that it needed to re-review all documents prior to production because some documents were subject to the deliberative process privilege and others were highly confidential, court held that the privilege had been waived by the agency?s failure to object in its initial response and by the production in separate litigation, ordered the documents produced under the POD ?Confidential, For Outside Attorney Eyes Only? and ordered defendants to bear the costs ?of copying and producing the documents in electronic form?
Nature of Case: Allegations that defendants artificially increased the published price of prescription drugs
Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced in separate litigation and maintained in database by third party
Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed lower court?s finding that plaintiff failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of a printed electronic spreadsheet where, although plaintiff?s agent averred the spreadsheet was kept in the usual course of business, the agent failed to establish his familiarity with plaintiff?s business practices and ?when, how, or by whom? the spreadsheet was made and where the agent failed to establish that the printed spreadsheet was a true and accurate representation of the electronic record
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Printed electronic spreadsheet
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 © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.