Key Insight: Defendant required to produce computerized information; conduct of defendant and technical and complex nature of production warranted appointment of examiner pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 to report to the court what materials the defendant possesses and whether defendant produced such material
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: Tapes, files, programs, reports, input and output files
Key Insight: Employer entitled to discover, at its own expense, copies of database on computer disk, code books and user manual created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer to allow for effective cross-examination of EEOC’s expert; in addition, employer to pay “fair portion of the fees and expenses incurred” in the past by EEOC for the expert’s work in encoding the requested data and formulating the database
Nature of Case: Consolidated Title VII action brought by individual and EEOC
Electronic Data Involved: Database created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer
Key Insight: Where defendant represented that it had not located any other responsive documents which were not previously produced, court ordered defendant, with seven days of receipt of the order, to: (1) confirm that a reasonable search for the subject documents was conducted and indicate what the manner of the search was, (2) produce responsive documents, (3) confirm if no responsive documents exist, and (4) confirm instances where the documents were destroyed, indicating by whom and when, if possible
Nature of Case: Class action for race discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other documents
Key Insight: Court found that local Patent Rule 3-4(a) requires production of source code and granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Source Code
Key Insight: Since defendant had destroyed electronic records and failed to produce the very records that would provide evidence of its contacts within D.C., even after being ordered by court to do so, court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; court declined to impose any sanctions, but said plaintiff could bring a motion in the future
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic information on servers
Key Insight: Default judgment entered against defendant and attorneys’ fees awarded to plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, for defendant’s willful and intentional destruction of laptop presumably containing crucial evidence of defendant’s decoder key modification programs, sale records and customer lists
Nature of Case: Cable TV provider sued businessman for cable TV theft
Electronic Data Involved: Laptop
Key Insight: Insurer’s willful failure to comply with discovery orders and failure to produce database warranted evidentiary preclusion order amounting to entry of default judgment on agent’s counterclaim
Nature of Case: Insurer sued former general agent and agent counterclaimed for renewal commissions owed
Electronic Data Involved: Database containing raw data regarding policies sold by agents
Key Insight: Magistrate found good cause to grant motion to compel where deponent identified source code in deposition which had not been produced; court ordered defendant to produce sworn declaration setting forth the specific efforts it made to locate responsive documents and either a certification that all documents have been produced, or an explanation of why the documents have not yet been produced
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Source code
Key Insight: Where defendants “deliberately and willfully” failed to produce responsive documents, court concluded that defendants had not substantially complied with its prior discovery order and awarded civil contempt sanctions against defendants in the amount of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs
Nature of Case: Securities litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Documents on individual defendant’s personal computer
Key Insight: Granting motion to compel defendant to produce email from backup tapes notwithstanding fact that restoration and retrieval costs may approach $100,000, court stated: “Upon installing a data storage system, it must be assumed that at some point in the future one may need to retrieve the information previously stored. That there may be deficiencies in the retrieval system (or inconvenience and cost associated with the actual retrieval) cannot be sufficient to defeat an otherwise good faith request to examine relevant information . . .”
Nature of Case: Valuation dispute arising as result of two merger agreements
Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on monthly backup tapes
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.