Key Insight: After granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants, court retained ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; court conducted seven-day evidentiary hearing on the motion, ultimately rejecting plaintiff’s various claims of spoliation
Nature of Case: Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act claims
Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer hard drives
Key Insight: Although court found that U.S. Bank was grossly negligent in failing to institute a litigation hold until eight months after its duty to preserve arose, court denied spoliation sanctions as there was no evidence of bad faith but positive evidence of good faith, and U.S. Bank presented persuasive evidence that no relevant documents were destroyed; court further ruled that litigation hold that U.S. Bank finally did impose was reasonable, as custodians were guided by both business people and counsel as to what to retain and counsel monitored compliance, gathering and reviewing relevant emails in the legal hold folders, substantive emails and attachments were printed out and retained separately and not subject to autodeletion policy
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, declaratory judgment
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Upon motion for reconsideration based on Plaintiff?s location and production of a document previously found to have been spoliated, court found that an adverse inference and monetary sanctions predicated on the finding of spoliation were no longer appropriate but ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for the delay and Defendants? protracted efforts to procure the document?s production
Electronic Data Involved: Single document (ESI)
Key Insight: Court found Target was at least grossly negligent for failing to preserve all portions of relevant surveillance footage (capturing Plaintiff?s fall and the surrounding circumstances) and thus imposed an adverse inference and monetary sanctions, but declined to strike Target?s answer or preclude use of the at-issue video excerpts and photographs
Nature of Case: Personal injury/slip and fall
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage
Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for former employer?s spoliation of a tape containing a secretly recorded conversation ?which in part? led to Plaintiff?s termination, the court found that the tape was relevant, that Defendant had an obligation to preserve it (citing the fact that ?it knew that litigation was imminent? and a federal statute requiring the preservation of employment records concerning a terminated employee for 1 year from the date of termination), and that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the spoliation; in concluding that sanctions were warranted, court noted Defendant?s four month delay in issuing a litigation hold and indicated that ?[a]fter the duty to preserve attaches, the failure to collect taped recording from a key player is grossly negligent or willful?; what specific sanction would be imposed was not determined
Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Tape of secretly recorded conversation
Key Insight: In the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, Court deferred ruling on plaintiff?s motion to compel to the extent it sought records from Wyatt Detention Facility (a third party), and directed defense counsel to request from the WDF the records plaintiff sought and to report on the status of such request at the next pretrial conference; court further denied defendants? request to limit their obligation to preserve and produce ESI so that they need not maintain that information beyond the regularly scheduled deletion, purge or overwriting date unless they have actual knowledge that responsive information actually is contained in the system or unless opposing party specifically requests it in writing, and to exclude backup tapes from litigation hold, as defendants did not provide any reason why their obligation to preserve all relevant ESI, including backup tapes or disks, should be voided, or why they should be excused from a party?s general duty to preserve relevant evidence once on notice of litigation
Nature of Case: Inmate at Wyatt Detention Facility asserted escessive force claims against four U.S. Marshals
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where a former employee (defendant) admitted prior possession of a thumb drive containing Plaintiff?s data (her prior employer) and that she had connected the thumb drive to her new employer?s computers (who is also a defendant) but where she claimed that she had not transferred any of Plaintiff?s information, that she could not recall the computer she connected to, and that she destroyed the drive before her duty to preserve arose, court reasoned that there was a ?sufficient nexus between the defendant?s computers and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets to warrant forensic imaging of the computers? (over 60 in number) but, applying the cost-shifting analysis from Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC 217 FRD 309 (SDNY 2003), found that in light of the ?broad scope of the request, the cost of production, the resource disparity of the parties? and defendant?s repeated assertion that the information did not exist, cost shifting was appropriate; court indicated it ?may reconsider? cost allocation if the expert determined that information from the thumb drive was transferred to defendant?s computer
Nature of Case: Trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: ESI of former employer
Key Insight: Circuit court pronounced prospective rule that a district court must issue explicit findings of bad faith and prejudice prior to delivering an adverse inference instruction but found district court?s failure to do so in the present case was harmless error and that the Defendant was not entitled to a new trial
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Key Insight: Plaintiff sought production of audio recordings which Defendants initially indicated were available. Upon being ordered to produce certain information regarding those recordings, Defendants indicated they were unable to locate them. Following Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the recordings were discovered in a closet, but Defendants argued it would be unduly burdensome to restore and listen to the recordings and that production should not be required. Upon Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the court found that Defendants had willfully violated the court?s orders and prejudiced the Plaintiff. Thus, the court ordered Defendants to produce the recordings at their expense and to bear the costs of additional depositions to be taken by the Plaintiff. The court also ordered Defendants and counsel to bear Plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys fees in equal proportion.
Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of phone calls
Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order to limit unduly burdensome discovery and preservation demands where Defendant established the significant burden associated with preserving the multiple repositories of potentially relevant information covering 89 potential custodians, including thousands of back-up tapes, and where the court found that the allegations of the complaint did not justify the broad timeframe for discovery sought
Nature of Case: Qui Tam action alleging violations of anti-kickback statute and retaliation against Relators
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.