Key Insight: Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate’s discovery rulings, concluding that absence of particular email from production did not mean that expert had intentionally hidden or destroyed it, particularly when expert was not listed as a recipient and testified that he did not recall receiving it
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court ordered party to conduct additional searches of data restored from backup tapes, and to restore and search a sample of additional backup tapes, shifting all initial costs to the requesting party; court further directed producing party to prepare an affidavit detailing the number of responsive documents found and the costs and expenses associated with the processes, including but not limited to attorneys fees for privilege review, which would assist the court in determining whether a full search would be necessary and whether further cost-shifting was warranted
Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract claims
Electronic Data Involved: Email and non-email electronic documents restored from backup tapes
Key Insight: Citing concerns that defendant had not accounted for documents that at one time were in its files, court ordered defendant to produce all responsive documents, submit a sworn declaration from a corporate officer setting forth precisely why it did not produce the documents that had been shown to the court, make its computers available for inspection by Leviton and its experts, and provide Leviton with an authorization to defendant’s email service company to produce all of defendant’s communication with its customers
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents
Key Insight: Court ordered parties to meet and confer and agree upon appropriate procedures for plaintiff?s expert to view disputed source code in his office in electronic format, and ordered plaintiff to file a declaration from the expert agreeing to be bound by such procedures; parties further ordered to meet and confer and agree upon a procedure by which expert could seek to change the designation of portions of the source code from his eyes only to outside counsel only
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Source code
Key Insight: Court ordered GM to produce “Kentucky Firefighter” and “Dancing Granny” emails if said emails can currently be found on GM’s email system, but GM would not be required to retrieve the emails from outside sources if they were not in GM’s possession; court further ordered that GM produce at its own expense the hard drives of various GM employees requested by plaintiff
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard drives
Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to submit amended proposal for protective order governing defendants’ production of source code, to include following items: (1) Defendants to produce a single electronic copy, to be kept either by plaintiff’s attorneys or by plaintiff’s expert; (2) electronic copy to be maintained pursuant to security scheme employed by plaintiff’s expert, as described at oral argument; and (3) Only three hard copies may be made, total
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Source code
Key Insight: Where the font used by plaintiff’s expert in his hard copy list of customer estimates and contracts was ?incredibly small? and difficult to read without magnification, thus rendering hard copy list inadequate, and because defendant’s request for production of material in electronic form was not otherwise prohibited by scheduling order, court granted defendant’s motion to compel the data in electronic format
Nature of Case: Plaintiff claimed loss of business resulting from letter sent by defendant
Electronic Data Involved: Customer list
Key Insight: Where court found that ULLICO had in bad faith “grossly abused” the use of the “confidential” designation allowed under parties’ stipulated protective order, court ordered ULLICO to completely re-do its confidentiality designations and also ensure that the documents were correctly identified in parties’ joint discovery database
Nature of Case: ERISA litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Confidential documents, joint discovery database
Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions of $36,391 where defendants “made no effort whatsoever to locate and provide either documentary or electronic data discovery,” and erroneously represented that relevant electronic evidence was irretrievable, thus giving plaintiffs no choice but to incur the extraordinary expense of hiring a computer consulting firm to retrieve what was purportedly ?irretrievable?
Nature of Case: Class action alleging claims under Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.