Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose spoliation sanctions against defendant university for deletion of former teaching assistant’s email account, where university backed-up the contents of the account onto two CDs before deleting it, and the deletion occurred before the lawsuit was filed
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, civil rights
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, finding no basis in the record for concluding that defendant’s failure to preserve email and other materials was so blameworthy that defendant should be deprived, either in whole or part, of the opportunity to defend the case on the merits, and adding: “Perhaps in the fullness of time foreign-based companies doing business in the United States will be held to the same ‘litigation holds’ and other devices now routinely applied by litigants here to make sure pertinent documents and other materials are retained and produced. And perhaps they should be held to the same standards in an era of ever-expanding global trade. Increasingly negligence on the other side of the globe can cause injury locally.”
Nature of Case: Subrogation action against foreign-based shipowner
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where defendant produced employment statistics from its database on a CD, but not in the format that plaintiffs wanted, court found that defendant had complied with Rule 34(b) requirement that ESI be produced ?in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable,? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel and for sanctions
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Employment statistics
Key Insight: Declining to impose sanctions at this stage of litigation, court reiterated its prior order requiring defendant to submit to a forensic inspection of its computer systems which record its purchases and sales of Square D products and its inventory of such products, with such inspection to be incurred at defendant’s sole expense and cost; court further denied defendant’s motion for protective order for lack of good cause
Nature of Case: Circuit breaker manufacturer alleged that defendants unlawfully imported, distributed, and sold counterfeit Square D products
Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer systems
Key Insight: Where object of two prior orders granting plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel immediate backup and imaging of certain defendants’ computers was preservation of evidence, court denied plaintiff’s later motion for order adopting 170-word search protocol that was separate and apart from any particular discovery request, since prior orders did not “contemplate that ClearOne have carte blanche access to the electronic data filtered only by keyword searching and privilege objections”
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, conversion
Electronic Data Involved: Mirror images of hard drives
Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?
Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services
Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata,” since plaintiff failed to comply with local procedural requirements for motion and because plaintiff never specified electronic format in original discovery requests but instead merely asked defendants for such production subsequently
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata
Key Insight: Though plaintiff?s counsel?s conduct in failing to give notice to defendant prior to executing subpoena and inspecting and copying two laptop computers of non-party was ?a flagrant abuse of the subpoena power and bad faith,? sanction of dismissal was too harsh and court instead imposed “sizeable” monetary sanction
Nature of Case: Breach of licensing agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of two laptops owned by non-party
Key Insight: Where defendant lost highly relevant financial and marketing data during data conversion but did not reveal the fact of the lost evidence until 3-1/2 years after plaintiffs originally requested it, and defendant raised frivolous and vexatious objections to plaintiffs’ requests for production, court found bad faith and ordered defendant to pay $720,000 to plaintiffs, representing 15 percent of plaintiffs? attorneys fees, as sanction for discovery misconduct
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Financial and marketing data
Key Insight: Where among other things defendants failed to produce documents in violation of court orders, made false statements regarding alleged damage to computer servers and destroyed computer servers in violation of court orders (thereby preventing an independent inspection regarding allegations that servers were damaged), court found that defendants? willful and bad faith discovery misconduct prejudiced plaintiff’s ability to obtain a fair trial on the merits and that lesser sanctions would not adequately rectify the prejudice and delay; court thus struck defendants? answers and entered default judgments against them
Nature of Case: Infringement litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Servers
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.