Key Insight: Court compelled production of limited social media contents after narrowing the requests to a more appropriate scope
Nature of Case: Personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: Social media/social network contents
Key Insight: Defendant sought production of Plaintiff?s emails, imposition of spoliation sanctions, and an extension of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff previously agreed to produce responsive documents from her Gmail and LinkedIn account, but failed to do so (later third party productions contained emails sent from her Gmail account). Plaintiff admitted she deleted emails from her Gmail account at various times, and evidence showed she instructed a subordinate to start using their personal email addresses and to delete various emails. The court found (i) a duty to preserve existed as of at least November 30, 2013, (ii) that Plaintiff breached that duty when she deleted emails, and (iii) there was a strong inference that the emails would have been unfavorable to Plaintiff because (iv) she deleted the emails in bad faith (to admittedly ?hide? the information). The court denied Defendant?s motion for equitable relief, but allowed Defendant?s alternate request that Plaintiff must provide full access to her Gmail account (details to be addressed in a meet-and-confer).
Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: Emails (gmail)
Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? ?duplicative? requests and claimed they had already produced responsive documents but provided Defendants with no guidance as to where such documents could be found within the voluminous production, the court acknowledged that it would ?ordinarily? conclude that Plaintiffs had no obligation to identify responsive documents but, citing the volume of data at issue, the ?asymmetry of information regarding the production between Plaintiffs,? the time the case had been pending, and the fact that additional discovery would be required, the court concluded that Plaintiff should provide additional information and ordered that Defendants would be permitted to identify ten categories of requested documents that Plaintiffs claimed to be duplicative and that Plaintiffs must then identify documents responsive to those requests
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court found that the at-issue discovery was not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and declined to compel production of every document ?referring or relating? to Plaintiff?s ?designated Responsible Managing Employee? for all 11 of Plaintiff?s California projects where the court determined that the relevance was minimal, where both parties ?appeared to agree? that the request would require ?a search for every document to or from [the employee]? and Plaintiff alleged that many documents were not electronically searchable, and where the court recognized that ordering such production could cause a ?chilling effect? that may ?discourage [construction] companies from filing a lawsuit merely to avoid the discovery costs?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI and other records “referring or relating” to specified employee
Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s request for $16,200.00 in costs charged by third party vendor who assisted in email production, including $16,000 for ?Digital Tech Time per GB: Tiff Conversion, OCR, Endorse & Export for Searchable PDF,? court concluded that converting files to TIFF or PDF was the equivalent of ?making copies? and was recoverable but that costs for making a document searchable are not recoverable; where Defendant failed to provide an adequate breakdown of the costs for each service provided, court reduced the requested recovery and awarded $4,000 for the ?Tiff conversion portion of the invoice? and also awarded $200 for the cost of two hard drives utilized for the email production
Electronic Data Involved: Taxable costs ( 28 U.S.C. ? 1920(4))
Key Insight: Judgment vacated and new trial ordered for deliberate spoliation of relevant emails revealed by credible witness after original trial
Nature of Case: Personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court indicated that it was “not readily apparent what ESI activities the charges at issue cover[ed], or how th[ose] activities constitute[d] either of the two applicable types of taxable costs identified in Race Tires Amer., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012) and, following an extensive discussion of the reasoning and findings in Race Tire, indicated that ?the highly technical nature of the services simply does not exempt parties who seek to recover their electronic discovery costs under ?1920(4) from showing that the costs fall within the subsection?s limited allowance for ?the cost of making copies of any materials?? and vacated and remanded the case, suggesting that the court consider an evidentiary hearing or taking additional evidence to make its decision
Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act
Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs
Key Insight: Where parties entered into an agreement that set forth parameters for production of ESI, District Court held that ?when the costs of complying with the agreement are within the obligations of the Agreement and reasonably incurred in complying with the Agreement, they are recoverable? and circuit court, on appeal, concluded that District Court acted within its discretion: ?The district court held that the e-discovery costs incurred in procedures required by the ESI Agreement are within the scope of ? 1920. Relying on the Agreement, the district court did not separate the activities required by the e-discovery Agreement. We conclude that the district acted within its discretion.?
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Taxable Costs ( 28 U.S.C. ? 1920)
Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in declining to impose an adverse inference for failure to preserve ESI in an accessible format and instead awarding costs and attorneys fees where the at issue system “contained only ‘tangential information'” and where Plaintiff failed to seek discovery from other sources; Circuit court’s analysis noted recently amended Rule 37(e)’s required finding of intent to impose an adverse inference and that the District Court “specifically found that defendants did not act with such intent”
Nature of Case: Class action: breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI in third party custody but under control of defendants
Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of litigation hold notices and related responses to a survey regarding recipients? computer use where, despite the absence of specific evidence of spoliation or a pending spoliation motion, the delayed (9-11 months) and rolling issuance of litigation holds was described by the court as ?leisurely, to an extent making it impossible to dismiss as frivolous [Plaintiff?s] suggestion that she might move for a spoliation sanction? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff was ?entitled to discovery in these areas, in order to discern the merit or lack of merit of a formal claim for spoliation claim? [sic]; regarding assertions that the hold notices were privileged, the court reasoned that ?the predominant purpose of the communication was to give recipients forceful instructions about what they must do, rather than advice about what they might do?; court?s analysis included identification of six ?decisive questions? relevant to ?spoliation cases involving litigation hold notices? including, when the duty to preserve arose, whether litigation holds were issued, when they were issued, what they said, how recipients responded and what further action was taken beyond the litigation holds to preserve evidence
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Litigation Hold notices and survey to recipients regarding computer use
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.