Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of emails sent between plaintiff, her attorney, and her husband, where husband was an attorney, although not the attorney of record, and where he acted as plaintiff?s ?personal attorney? and provided legal advice regarding ongoing litigation
Nature of Case: Class action breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation
Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage
Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel where plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that requested emails existed and where defendant offered sworn testimony that all responsive document had been produced; court also denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff offered no evidence that allegedly spoliated materials existed; where defendant indicated its inability to locate a particular document but produced audio tapes detailing the contents, court declined to impose sanctions because plaintiffs offered no evidence of defendant?s intentional destruction of evidence and because plaintiffs suffered no prejudice in light of alternative source for requested information
Nature of Case: Litigation concerning insurance company’s denial of benefits
Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI
Key Insight: Court found that defendant waived attorney-client privilege as to specific emails where defendant failed to establish privileged nature of the communications and where defendant failed to properly identify the emails on a privilege log prior to their inadvertent production; court ordered adverse instruction in favor of plaintiffs as spoliation sanction where defendant failed to produce highly relevant hard drives for inspection and where defendants? proffered explanations for the destruction of those hard drives was contradicted and ?lame? in light of defendants? knowledge of their relevance and its duty to preserve
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, hard drives
Key Insight: Where defendants? radio log indicated a relevant communication occurred but where defendants were unable to produce the audio tape, court ordered defendant to produce its document retention policies to show ?whether the [communications] were maintained according to standard procedure?
Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged illegal arrest and detention
Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of phonecalls, access to
Key Insight: Where defendant?s audio consultant identified potential inaccuracies between the audio tapes produced and the original recordings, and where the original recordings were subject to disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, court granted plaintiff?s motion for access to the original Exxacom system recordings ?to confirm that the recordings?are faithful reproductions?; acknowledging defendant?s burden in re-production where many hours had already been spent, court observed, ?The Government?s burden is measured in hours; the Defendant?s in years.?
Nature of Case: Criminal production of child pornography
Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings
Key Insight: Where a university responded to a subpoena seeking ?all documents and electronically-stored information relating to the assignment of the IP addresses? of unidentified, suspected copyright infringers by producing file logs identifying the dorm rooms associated with the IP addresses at issue and the MAC addresses of the devices used to access the internet, but where it could not provide the names to which the addresses were assigned because the rooms were shared, court denied motion to compel based on specific language of subpoena but permitted service of a third subpoena specifically seeking names of the residents of each room at issue
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names of ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Despite their production?s compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, court ordered defendants to specifically identify documents responsive to particular requests where plaintiff could not ?easily locate the documents? responsive to those requests within the production; court ordered defendant to use search terms provided by plaintiffs, despite objections of burden and privilege, but ordered use of connector term ?and? rather than ?or? to return documents ?more responsive? to the requests; court declined to order forensic imaging of hard drive but ordered defendant?s expert to produce attorney?s eyes only report of examination of the hard drive to address specific concerns and to provide plaintiffs with a directory list for all defendant?s non-Altair computer hard drives
Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard drives
Key Insight: Citing Aguilar v. United States Dep?t of Homeland Sec, 2008 WL 5062700 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2008), which stated: ?In the absence of an issue concerning the authenticity of a document or the process by which it was created, most metadata has no evidentiary value.?, court denied motion to compel production of metadata where plaintiff failed to show its relevance and made no claim that the documents had been improperly modified
Nature of Case: Claims arising from the Securities Exchange Act
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata
Key Insight: Where defendant offered plaintiff access to the relevant computer for analysis but where defendant had not yet provided access and had failed to confirm production of all responsive documents from all relevant computers pursuant to court order, court ordered defendant to make computer available within 15 days so that plaintiff?s expert might ?ascertain for itself whether all responsive documents have been produced or?whether any relevant information on the hard drive or drives have been destroyed, erased, or wiped? and to serve verified supplemental responses to discovery indicating ?a diligent search of every computer [at issue]?
Nature of Case: Complaint for declaratory relief pursuant to Petroleum Marketing Practices Act
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.