Key Insight: Court ordered parties to develop joint precertification discovery plan and articulated detailed guidelines for discovery of ESI adapted from the ?Suggested Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information? set forth by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of email from 113 backup tapes, estimated to cost between $45,200 and $79,100, plus attorney’s time in reviewing documents, since defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated that responsive emails relating to settlement negotiations existed on the backup tapes, which covered time periods that were months after the settlement was reached; court noted that if moving party wished to pay to restore the backup tapes, it may do so
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes
Key Insight: Where defendant did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for numerous categories of documents that court ordered be produced, did not conduct a reasonably diligent search for ESI, and did not suspend its document destruction policy or otherwise take adequate steps to preserve documents, among other forms of relief court ordered defendant to retain at its own expense an outside vendor, to be jointly selected by the parties, to collect responsive ESI; court further indicated it would impose $125,000 in sanctions representing reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees expended by plaintiff as result of defendant’s discovery misconduct
Nature of Case: Licensing and distribution claims, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic documents
Key Insight: Court denied motion for protective order since record was incomplete, but ordered parties to meet and confer to develop a proposed discovery plan; court set forth specific instructions regarding preservation of documents to be observed by parties until they reached agreement on preservation plan
Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives, metadata, and other forms of electronic documents
Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions but not adverse inference instruction where defendant negligently failed to implement adequate litigation hold and preserve electronic evidence, but evidence was insufficient to show defendant acted in bad faith or with culpable state of mind or that plaintiff had suffered any prejudice
Nature of Case: Environmental litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Email and backup tapes
Key Insight: Adverse inference and monetary sanctions warranted, but not default judgment, where defendant acknowledged that its personnel routinely deleted emails without regard to whether the deleted emails were relevant to the litigation, but behavior did not constitute a pattern of deliberately deceptive litigation practices and there was evidence that the actual number of emails lost was small
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: In stipulated order, parties agreed that plaintiffs would preserve hard drives used by plaintiffs and plaintiffs? decedents and that such hard drives would be imaged and analyzed pursuant to an agreed forensic examination protocol; that responsive ESI would be collected by defendants from defendants’ active IT environment and not from backup tapes absent exceptional circumstances, and that plaintiffs would defer to defendants as to the format of production
Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI
Key Insight: Court modified Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition and ordered defendant to produce a representative to testify concerning various matters, including defendant’s document destruction and retention policies for paper and electronic information, and what information sought in particular interrogatory could be retrieved from computer system and what could only be retrieved manually
Nature of Case: Drug company claimed drug store chain improperly substituted one drug for another
Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases
Key Insight: Where there was no evidence that server logs were erased in bad faith and facts suggested that defendant was, at most, merely negligent, since it took reasonable steps to preserve relevant data — it retained and consulted with technical expert; on advice of its expert, it made a copy of the relevant server logs on CDs that could not be overwritten; it stored copies of the data on its server; and it made the data on the server available for inspection by plaintiff prior to the time it was overwritten — and where plaintiff was unable to demonstrate any real prejudice from the loss of some metadata in server logs, magistrate judge found no basis for spoliation sanctions of any kind and recommended denial of plaintiff’s sanctions motion
Nature of Case: Parties asserted claims under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, each arguing that the other had obtained unlawful access to databases
Electronic Data Involved: Metadata; server logs
Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval
Nature of Case: Disability discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.