Key Insight: Even if database was incomplete and potentially unhelpful, court found that plaintiff was nonetheless entitled to information contained in the database since it did have some value and was relevant to plaintiff?s damages case, and its production did not appear to involved undue cost or complexity
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: In this seminal case, District Court Judge Paul Grimm held that the failure of both parties to adhere to the rules of evidence precluded entry of summary judgment and discussed at length and in great detail the admissibility of electronically stored information
Nature of Case: Action to enforce a private arbitrator?s award
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court analyzed application of attorney/client privilege and work product protection to information entered into a database and printed in spreadsheet format, comparing database to a “file cabinet” with “drawers” and “file folders”; court ultimately ordered production of a master spreadsheet with several categories of information redacted
Nature of Case: Contract and tort claims arising from alleged mortgage fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Database, spreadsheets
Key Insight: Court declared subpoena invalid because requirements of Rule 26(d) apply to subpoenas issued to non-parties, and parties’ written correspondence did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(f) to meet, confer, and develop a discovery plan
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Hurricane damage evaluation materials prepared by third party
Key Insight: Where defense expert witnesses testified that defense counsel prepared the first drafts of reports, and revisions and changes were often exchanged through email, and plaintiff contended that it could not tell whether all drafts were produced, nor could it tell who created and/or revised each draft, court ordered defendant to produce copies of all drafts of all expert opinions, together with all communications between defendant?s employees or counsel and expert witnesses regarding the drafts; court further ordered defendant to provide a declaration of counsel confirming full production and explaining the chronology of the revisions and the author of each set of revisions; declaration would be binding on defendant and could be used for cross-examination of expert witnesses
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email and draft expert reports
Key Insight: Court directed defense counsel to file supplemental memorandum regarding her communications with defendant regarding supplemental discovery responses and preservation of evidence and to provide documentation of same for in camera inspection; court further directed defendant to make available key player’s hard drive for forensic examination
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Drawings; hard drive
Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel and for sanctions where parties had agreed on detailed ESI discovery protocol and defendant had opportunity to discover ESI from plaintiff pursuant thereto but never availed itself of that opportunity notwithstanding plaintiff’s continued cooperation; court further awarded sanctions to plaintiff for having to oppose the motion
Nature of Case: Construction litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy
Key Insight: Court ordered production of a complete copy of defendant’s Sequel database, and any historical backup copies of database spanning relevant time period, since it was highly relevant to parties’ claims and defenses and defendant had not articulated a valid legal basis for resisting its disclosure; court further ordered that the database was to be treated as “Highly Confidential” pursuant to court’s confidentiality order
Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata,” since plaintiff failed to comply with local procedural requirements for motion and because plaintiff never specified electronic format in original discovery requests but instead merely asked defendants for such production subsequently
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.