Key Insight: Court denied as overly-broad and intrusive defendant’s request that its forensic expert be permitted to make complete forensic copy of plaintiff’s File Server and FTP server; court instead would allow forensic expert to make forensic copy of relevant folders on plaintiff’s FTP server
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Metadata
Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs
Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees
Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI
Key Insight: District court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s order compelling production of certain ESI, rejecting claim that requested discovery was unduly burdensome; although defendants claimed they had more than 1500 servers, court noted that discovery was limited to 67 specific web sites and defendants had offered no evidence to suggest that they could not narrow the number of servers on which responsive content might exist; court ordered parties to meet and confer to agree upon protocol for obtaining the requested discovery
Nature of Case: Contributory and vicarious trademark and copyright infringement claims against internet service providers who host third-party websites on their servers
Electronic Data Involved: Publicly-posted Internet content evidencing offers made of counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise and traffic logs evidencing the volume of underlying counterfeit activity, limited to 67 allegedly infringing websites identified by plaintiff
Key Insight: Court compelled production of deponent to answer specifically tailored questions regarding retention of electronically stored documents where plaintiff suspected spoliation due to defendant?s failure to timely issue preservation notices and where inquiry into retention policies would assist in narrowing scope of discoverable electronic materials; court also compelled production of identity of author of relevant email
Nature of Case: Products liability
Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies, email
Key Insight: Where defendant willfully destroyed relevant work orders pursuant to its document retention policy but where defendant should have been aware of the relevance of the documents and the resulting duty to preserve, court ordered adverse inference in favor of plaintiff and prohibited defendants from introducing secondary evidence of contents of spoliated documents
Nature of Case: Title VII action for discriminatory discipline based on race
Key Insight: Noting that ?perfection in document production is not required?, court denied plaintiffs? motion for sanctions or additional discovery orders where defendants offered valid reasons for the non-production of some data, performed a thorough search of their systems for the requested information, and explained that there were no other sources to search and where the burden of production outweighed the likely benefit; court indicated that ?experts can extrapolate and estimate from available data in order to perform calculations and provide opinions.?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court sustained objection to request seeking “[a]ny and all electronically stored information, documents, reports, logs and/or memorandums contained in any and all of the electronic databases and/or computer systems of Allegheny County Jail, Allegheny Correctional Health Services, Inc., Bruce Dixon, and Dana Phillips” as overbroad, unreasonably cumulative, and unduly burdensome, since the request imposed no limits (time or otherwise) on ESI requested; court allowed plaintiffs to revise request to include reasonable limitations and serve it by certain date
Nature of Case: Wrongful death
Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI
Key Insight: Where information requested was relevant to EEOC?s claim, and defendants failed to provide concrete substantiation of the alleged burden, either in terms of manpower, hours, or financial resources that would be required to compile it, court ruled that, even though EEOC requested information in electronic database form, defendants’ answers were not restricted by their electronic record-keeping system; court ordered defendants to make a good faith effort to compile supplemental information from all available sources
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Employment records and information
Key Insight: Where neither party would be able to conclusively prove ownership of disputed technology without analysis of source code, court concluded that documents related to source code and other technology plaintiff claimed as trade secret were ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered plaintiff to produce responsive documents and ESI
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Source code and related technology
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of defendant?s general counsel?s laptop for imaging despite testimony that the laptop had been used to create some of the documents at issue where there was no evidence of discovery misconduct, where defendant searched extensively for and produced documents responsive to plaintiff?s requests, and where the ?intrusive search? would likely lead to the disclosure of privileged and confidential information ; court noted that Rule 34 does not create ?a routine right of direct access to a party?s electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances?
Nature of Case: Discrimination and retaliation in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, emails
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.