Key Insight: No abuse of discretion for trial court to strike defendant’s answer and enter judgment for plaintiff on issue of liability, where defendant reformatted computer’s hard drive, effectively erasing any information the computer may have contained, a day before surrendering it for court-ordered inspection
Nature of Case: Dispute between former business partners
Electronic Data Involved: Laptop
Key Insight: Defendant’s response to (overbroad) document request, which directed requesting party to defendant’s web site where relevant HR policies and a particular employee handbook could be retrieved, was not insufficient response; court narrowed request and ordered production of any additional documents within 20 days; no sanctions warranted
Nature of Case: Former employee alleged violations of free speech, due process and gender discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic HR policies and manuals
Key Insight: Defendant’s subpoena to ISP of plaintiff, which sought all copies of all email sent or received by anyone at plaintiff with no limitation as to time or scope, was “massively overbroad,” “patently unlawful,” and “transparently and egregiously” violated federal rules; besides warranting sanctions in underlying suit, subpoena was grounds for separate action by employees of plaintiff against defendant for violation of federal Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and state law
Nature of Case: Violation of federal electronic privacy and computer fraud statutes
Electronic Data Involved: Email stored by Internet Service Provider
Key Insight: Court ruled that, although Martha Stewart waived the attorney client privilege when she forwarded to her daughter a privileged email containing her account of the facts surrounding her sale of the stock, she did not waive work product protection
Nature of Case: Criminal proceedings re Stewart’s sale of ImClone stock
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court granted underwriter defendants’ motion for extension to complete production of certain electronic discovery but advised that, should they fail to meet this schedule, plaintiffs could request to be relieved of their obligation to share expenses in the production of electronic discovery; further, defendants to conduct additional electronic discovery searches for nine more custodians
Nature of Case: Securities class action
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic discovery
Key Insight: Where statute specifically imposed a duty on defendants to preserve evidence, and defendants represented they had complied and will comply with the statute, and plaintiffs adduced no evidence of non-compliance, court declined to enter an order mandating the preservation of evidence
Nature of Case: Securities fraud class action
Electronic Data Involved: All relevant documents, data compilations and tangible things
Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce to plaintiff information in the possession of a third party storage facility, with each side paying one-half of the charges billed by the third party for retrieving the information; court further ruled that the prevailing party would be entitled to recover from the losing party its share of the costs associated with retrieval of the information
Nature of Case: FLSA claim
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents
Key Insight: Where defendants had actual notice of allegations against them and affirmatively stated that they were fully aware of their preservation obligations under PSLRA and sanctions for failure to comply, court declined to enter preservation order
Nature of Case: Securities litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Documents, data compilations (including electronically recorded or stored data), and tangible objects
Key Insight: Scheduling and case management order provides, inter alia, that document requests shall be responded to and documents produced within ten days after service, and that parties will produce documents in either hard copy form, or, in the case of electronic documents, in the native electronic format (or a mutually agreeable format)
Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiff should determine, either informally or during a corporate deposition of defendant, what information responsive to interrogatory could be retrieved from defendant?s computer system and what could only be retrieved manually; to the extent the information could only be retrieved manually, parties were ordered to attempt to agree on a sampling process
Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.