Key Insight: Circuit court found that the district court erred in imposing an adverse inference for failure to preserve absent evidence of bad faith and thus reversed the district court?s imposition of an adverse inference sanction
Nature of Case: Patent Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Source Code
Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to conduct forensic analysis of defendant?s email and electronic data systems where defendant?s employee admitted to sending a highly relevant email that was never produced and where defendant failed to establish that production ?would incur undue burden or expense?; court?s analysis included consideration of whether deleted emails were discoverable (yes) and the need for a protocol to protect the producing party?s privilege, confidential information
Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from auto accident
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court found that ?Defendant?s failure to produce any ESI, such as emails, attachments, exhibits, and word processing documents raise[d] justifiable concerns that Defendant may have 1) failed to preserve relevant evidence, or 2) failed to conduct a reasonable search for ESI responsive to Plaintiff?s discovery requests? and thus scheduled an evidentiary hearing and ordered Defendant to be prepared to present evidence on its preservation and search efforts (specific topics identified in court?s order)
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Miscellaneous ESI
Key Insight: Considering Defendant?s argument for an adverse inference where his former employer failed to produce his former work laptop and files, the court noted that the ?undisputed evidence show[ed] that Colgate destroyed the data on the laptop shortly after Flower?s retirement,? and concluded that: ?When data is destroyed pursuant to normal recordkeeping practices (and in particular when it is destroyed in relation to a major event like an employee?s retirement), no adverse inference is warranted.?
Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty
Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and its files
Key Insight: Court held plaintiff was not obligated to issue a litigation hold at the beginning of its full-phase investigation or upon the issuance of a CID because litigation was not reasonably foreseeable at those times, noting that the duty to preserve attaches when litigation is probable, which means ?more than a possibility?; court declined to order sanctions related to plaintiff?s auto-delete policy where the policy called for the preservation of relevant ESI and the deletion of duplicates and indicated that even if the policy resulted in the inadvertent loss of email, there was no evidence of bad faith, and cited Rule 37(e) re: safe harbor; court declined to impose sanctions for failure to issue a litigation hold over documents not in the plaintiff?s possession or control
Nature of Case: Government investigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant?s contractor produced CAD files with incorrect creation dates and was subsequently ordered to produce his computer for inspection in an unaltered state, but ran a file-deletion or ?computer cleaning/wiping? program named ?CCleaner? the night before delivering the computer for inspection, court found that sanctions were appropriate to keep defendant from benefitting from contractor?s intentional conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future; contractor would not be allowed to testify at trial, all evidence that originated with contractor would be excluded, defendant would not be allowed to rely on contractor?s deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes or at trial, and defendant was required to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and cost of forensic investigation conducted by plaintiff?s forensic expert
Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of defendant’s contract CAD software operator; metadata and contents of CAD files
Key Insight: Defendant?s lackluster effort to retrieve e-mail after hard drives crashed constituted a conscious disregard of its preservation obligations that could fairly be described as gross negligence or recklessness, and warranted sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction; court declined to impose sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve telephone recordings since there was insufficient evidence that any relevant calls were actually recorded and should have been preserved
Nature of Case: Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims
Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and telephone call recordings
Key Insight: For Defendants? discovery failures, including gross negligence in the identification and collection of potentially relevant documents (as a result of an individual defendant?s attempts to identify and collect responsive documents himself) and a ?cavalier attitude towards his discovery obligations? (as evidenced by the ?repeated failure? to conduct a proper document collection? and ?lack of candor regarding their document productions,? e.g., failure to indicate that certain produced emails were not ?the actual transmittal communications? that originally accompanied invoices), the court declined to impose severe sanctions absent evidence of bad faith – although the request was denied without prejudice – and ordered Defendants to pay reasonable expenses and fees incurred by Plaintiff that were attributable to Defendants? discovery misconduct, which Plaintiff represented could exceed $100,000
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of warranty, unfair competition, fraud
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including QUickbooks
Key Insight: Acknowledging the ?flexible and fact-specific? nature of the question of reasonable forseeability, the court addressed several possible triggers for the duty to preserve but ultimately determined that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the duty to preserve was reasonably foreseeable at the time defendant implemented its document retention policy or that defendant should have reasonably anticipated litigation and therefore denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where it was unclear that any spoliation had even occurred in light of defendants? backup system, where the court concluded that defendants had not acted in bad faith (but had instead ?expended great effort to insure that plaintiffs receive information from both their live and archived email system ??), and where the degree of prejudice was minimal (assuming spoliation occurred) in light of the significant other discovery that was produced
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.