Key Insight: inadequate search and production, misrepresentation, failure to supplement, follow-up, failure to disclose
Nature of Case: patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: email, board meeting minutes, investor presentations
Keywords: monetary sanctions, needless burden, late disclosures, post-settlement order, misrepresentation, motion to show cause
Key Insight: Court affirmed order of Magistrate Judge declining request for additional discovery based on Defendant?s alleged violation of the parties? protocol for discovery. Where parties agreed that each would disclose the eight custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable ESI, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to name its VP of North American sales in a ?systematic and pervasive effort? to prevent the disclosure of discoverable documents. Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff needed to explain why its proposed custodians were better than those identified by Defendant and permitted Plaintiff to conduct a test search at its expense, which uncovered few additional documents. Magistrate Judge held that absent a showing that Defendant violated the protocol, it should be enforced, noting that ?for good or ill? Plaintiff had agreed to limit the searches. Affirming the order, the District Court noted that the protocol required the identification of custodians ?most likely? to have discoverable information (describing the ?before-the-fact perspective?) and not the custodians that IN FACT had the most discoverable ESI and also that Plaintiff had failed to take up the Magistrate Judge?s invitation to provide additional search terms for the test, which may have identified additional information to bolster their position
Nature of Case: Patent Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from 8 custodians “most likely” to have responsive information
Key Insight: Where counsel for defendant indicated that relevant emails were not available because they were no longer retained in accordance with a document retention policy requiring the maintenance of emails for only 30 days and where no litigation hold was in place because Defendant was relying on its existing document retention policy because a litigation hold would be overly burdensome, court reasoned that ?the deletion of some responsive emails does not absolve Defendant of its obligation to thoroughly search for still-extant ESI? and ordered production of ?full and adequate responses to discovery? and also ordered Defendant to implement a litigation hold to preclude potential deletion of relevant information
Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where, in email, the parties agreed to use certain search terms and one party produced all such hits except those deemed privileged while the other produced only relevant documents, court indicated that if it were to construe the emails as a binding contract, Defendant would be in breach, but found that it was not a contract and reasoned that there was no evidence that relevant documents were withheld nor that additional searches would produce more responsive documents, and thus denied Plaintiff?s motion to compel
Nature of Case: Defamation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI identified by agreed search terms
Key Insight: Where relevant video was lost as a result of mistakes made by representatives of the defendant who were attempting to pull and preserve the video from the recording system for the first time and where CDs with the footage ?vanished,? the court reasoned that the errors were symptoms of a ?larger problem: an inadequate information management and evidence retention policy? (a point it relied on significantly in its discussion of culpability) and also found that the plaintiff was prejudiced and imposed sanctions allowing Plaintiff to present evidence that the video existed and was lost through negligence and indicated that if Defendant attempted to elicit testimony from a deputy regarding what he saw on the video (that was viewed by several of defendant?s representatives before it was lost), the jury would be instructed to make any inference they believed was appropriate; the court also ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff?s expenses and fees incurred in bringing the motion
Nature of Case: Traffic accident involving a police officer
Electronic Data Involved: Video footage
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel inspection of Defendant?s personal computer that was utilized for business where Plaintiff established that relevant information was likely stored there, where the information was potentially ?critical? to Plaintiff?s case (regarding whether Defendant had utilized Plaintiff?s confidential information), where there was ?no other avenue? to obtain the requested discovery, where the costs did not appear substantial, where Plaintiff?s counsel made a good faith effort at alternative resolutions before brining the motion, and?notably?where Defendant had previously agreed to the inspection (but later objected); court also granted access to Defendant?s email accounts, including disclosure of his passwords; as to both repositories, court ordered the parties? to agree on a search protocol/search terms that included allowing Defendant to review the results of the search prior to production
Nature of Case: Defendant’s alleged use of Plaintiff’s confidential files to underbid Plaintiff on various projects
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: Where Defendant resisted searching certain emails arguing undue burden and that it was unlikely that responsive emails would be found but where no evidence of burden was submitted, where not even a cursory search of the emails was undertaken and where there were examples of the sorts of email sought produced from other employees, the court ordered Defendant to conduct the requested search; similarly, where Defendant offered no evidence of the alleged burden to review and produce the at-issue call recordings, where Plaintiff offered to bear the full cost of transcribing the messages, and where the court determined that the likelihood that the calls would be privileged was low, the court ordered Defendant to produce the raw audiofiles of its customer service calls and voicemail; notably, at the outset of its analysis the court noted that at least 10 attorneys had appeared for each party and that it was ?apparent that the issues at stake are significant,? including posing an ?existential risk? to Defendant and therefore concluded that ?any proportionality argument has a high bar to clear to be successful?
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Customer service emails, call recordings
Key Insight: Where Defendant formulated search terms and identified custodians unilaterally before undertaking its search and where plaintiff suspected the results were insufficient based on both the low volume of information produced and the failure to produce certain expected information (based on third parties? productions), the court considered Defendant?s multiple proposals for addressing the issue and determined that starting again, from scratch, was most appropriate; addressing whether the cost was disproportionate, court declined to characterize the costs as ?additional expense,? reasoning that Defendant ?should have resolved these issues before undertaking its unilateral search?
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Among other things, court denied motion for protective order upon finding that Plaintiffs were ?entitled to obtain basic information sufficient to determine whether searches were reasonably conducted and the results properly verified? even without ?evidence that specific documents were destroyed or withheld? and reasoned that ?the fact that [Defendant?s] attorney(s) conducted or supervised the searches does not protect such non-privileged information from disclosure?
Electronic Data Involved: Information re: efforts to preserve, search
Key Insight: Court ruled that defendants may, under the proportionality factors in 26(b)(1), limit their search to databases and central repositories rather than engage in custodial searches for all cases at the Defendant Fact Sheet (DFS) stage of the MDL due to the ?significant burden of the proposed custodial-file searches? and the less-than-certain benefits of such searches.? The Court noted Defendant?s acknowledgement that custodial searches would likely be ?warranted for a narrower group of cases at a later stage? and that plaintiffs were free to seek permission to engage in further discovery if information available in the structured databases was insufficient.
Nature of Case: Products Liability
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.