Key Insight: Where defendant withheld computerized data and defense expert subsequently used data in rebuttal report, court allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to defendants’ rebuttal expert report, and ruled that defendants would not be allowed opportunity to reply to plaintiffs’ response to the withheld information
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: Computerized transaction data
Key Insight: Magistrate’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and awarding attorneys’ fees upheld; employer required to provide available data and also respond by stating the steps taken to obtain non-work related internet sites accessed during the dates requested, including detailed explanation of efforts to obtain information and reasons its efforts were not successful if it was unable to obtain the data to fully respond to interrogatory
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Information re all non-work related internet sites accessed on certain of employer’s computers during relevant period
Key Insight: Where defendant voluntarily divulged a privileged email communication at unemployment hearing and in response to discovery request, defendant waived any privilege with respect to the communication and to testimony and documents regarding the same subject matter; trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for return of the communication and for protective order, and in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel
Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Although plaintiff’s production of relevant email and other documents in electronic form after the close of discovery demonstrated lack of good faith effort to produce all requested discovery in timely manner, sanctions were not warranted
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other documents in electronic form
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to allow experts to perform physical inspection of their computer equipment and files, since full disclosure of email had been provided by defendants and inspection was likely to be unduly burdensome
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer equipment and files
Key Insight: Granting summary judgment for defendants, court noted that pursuant to an earlier order, plaintiffs’ expert was given unrestricted access to the hard drives of Pharmatrak’s computer servers over one-month period, and stated that plaintiffs characterization of its expert’s search of Pharmatrak’s computer servers as a “partial” inspection was unsupported by the record and failed to raise an issue of fact
Nature of Case: Class action alleging that defendants secretly intercepted and accessed plaintiffs’ personal information and browsing habits through unlawful use of cookies and other devices
Electronic Data Involved: Inspection of computer servers
Key Insight: Based on in camera review, court granted defendant’s motion to compel based on the crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, ordered production of other documents on same subject matter and further ruled that discovery would be allowed regarding documents produced and on the issue of sanctions
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes
Key Insight: Defendant ordered to provide a complete and full response to interrogatory seeking information about Hospital Authority’s computer and email systems; defendant’s “very brief and general response” was insufficient
Nature of Case: Former employee alleged violations of free speech, due process and gender discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Information re computer and email systems
Key Insight: Negative inference instruction warranted where six gigabytes of music were downloaded onto hard drive the night before the computer was to be turned over for inspection
Nature of Case: Manufacturer sued former employees and their new competing company for misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive
Key Insight: Court denied Stewart’s motion to disqualify the attorney who inadvertently read Stewart’s email from cross-examining her or participating in the preparation of her cross-examination
Nature of Case: Criminal proceedings re Stewart’s sale of ImClone stock
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.