Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s December 21, 2008 order imposing sanctions of $99,462, upheld the December 21, 2008 order in its entirety, and ordered defendants to comply with the order by March 3, 2008
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract
Electronic Data Involved: Computer
Key Insight: Where emails and other documents stored on backup records were destroyed after complaint was filed, but reasons defendant began destroying such outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes at that time were (1) to reduce storage costs of up to $4,000 per year and (2) because data on tapes was no longer readable, and decision to destroy the unusable tapes not made by anyone who had anything to do with plaintiff, court concluded evidence did not support drawing any adverse inference from defendant?s intentional destruction of potentially probative evidence
Nature of Case: Claim for violation of FMLA
Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes
Key Insight: Where defendant certified that he had deleted any and all of plaintiff’s proprietary information from his computer and stipulated to plaintiff’s requested relief, court ordered that a mutually acceptable representative of plaintiff be allowed to examine defendant’s computer to confirm permanent deletion of proprietary information
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information
Electronic Data Involved: Recruiting firm’s database; computer hard drive
Key Insight: Because court ruled that plaintiff?s claims were without merit and granted defendant?s motion to dismiss, with prejudice, court concluded there was no need for expert to access laptop?s hard drive and that defendant was entitled to return of its property; court ordered plaintiff to return laptop and other property to defendant former employer, and directed defendant to ?preserve, maintain, and protect all such property and things in their present state from destruction, modification and/or alteration? until the action was finalized
Nature of Case: Wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Employer-provided laptop
Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that defendant’s search for responsive documents was insufficient insofar as it was limited to search of computers of seven employees listed in defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosure using five search terms, and defendant represented that: (1) it searched records of employees who were principally involved with project, (2) it used search terms that would reasonably lead to responsive documents without also producing volumes of unrelated documents, (3) in addition to conducting computer-based search, it also asked employees to search their electronic and physical records; (4) there were no other locations where responsive documents might be located; and (5) it did not have any backup tapes to search as its attempts to restore lost data had failed, court found defendant had conducted reasonable search for responsive documents and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel broader search
Nature of Case: Contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI
Key Insight: Court denied third party?s motion to quash and ordered it to produce 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding maintenance of electronic copies of files, including electronic copies of two contested letters, backup procedures utilized, and document and electronic record retention policies
Nature of Case: Securities fraud, common law fraud, promissory and equitable estoppel, breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copies of two disputed letters
Key Insight: Court granted motion brought by plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B), Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and issued order compelling defendant to produce witness or witnesses who could fully testify about document retention practices and policies of HUD and actual steps taken to produce documents
Nature of Case: Owners of low-income housing who had received mortgage insurance from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought action alleging regulatory taking
Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies
Key Insight: Where Commissioner was legally authorized to conduct an investigation, subpoena sought documents and ESI that were reasonably relevant to investigation, and Commissioner had valid concerns regarding completeness of plaintiff?s prior productions, court found that investigative subpoena was issued for a proper purpose and denied plaintiff?s motion to quash; court further rejected plaintiff?s claim that subpoena was unduly burdensome, noting that plaintiff had failed to present any documentary evidence of its cost estimates and that plaintiff must bear production costs like any other cost of doing business
Nature of Case: Securities investigation conducted by Connecticut Commissioner of Banking
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel production of essentially every document in defendant?s possession, failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions, repeatedly ?filled the record with invective? and made misrepresentations to court, and where defendant had produced in native format over 1.4 million pages of documents as result of electronic search using plaintiff?s 102 search terms in addition to numerous versions of source code and paper documents, and was in substantial compliance with discovery at time of hearing, and where court had previously imposed cost shifting by ordering production of certain documents contingent upon plaintiff bearing $300,000 of defendant?s privilege review expense, court further ruled that defendant was entitled, under Rule 37(a)(5), to an additional $86,787 representing 75 percent of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the discovery dispute
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI
Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for contempt sanctions for discovery abuse denied where defendant indicated no documents responsive to subpoena existed, where search for documents entailed ?paper files, electronic files, hard drives, archives, computers, etc.?, where search was performed in presence of defendant?s paralegal and where defendant hired a contractor to search for archived emails but still found nothing; court found plaintiff?s reliance on ?passing statement? regarding email communication at deposition ?insufficient to prove that the purported emails ever existed?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.