Key Insight: Undertaking the appropriate comity analysis and finding that only two of seven factors weighed in favor of plaintiffs and that every other favor weighed in favor of the non-party banks, court denied motion to compel production of banking records of non-party Chinese banks
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Banking records
Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve expedited discovery on Doe #1?s Internet Service Provider seeking information sufficient to identify the Doe for service but severed Does 2-2099 from the case upon finding that they had been improperly joined
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of documents related to defendant?s litigation hold/preservation efforts where the court found that GE was at fault for the loss of certain data beyond mere inadvertence or carelessness and that the evidence lost was both relevant and discoverable
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including preclusion of evidence/witnesses, an adverse inference instruction (upon plaintiffs? request) and payment of attorney?s costs and fees for defendant?s discovery violations, including repeated failure to produce evidence despite court orders, and ?loss? of a flash drive and its contents under circumstances which supported a finding of gross negligence or intentional spoliation; court invited plaintiffs to seek sanctions against defense counsel, too, for counsel?s egregious violations of his duties, including failure to issue a litigation hold, failure to be candid regarding the loss of evidence, and failure to ensure compliance with client?s discovery obligations, among others
Nature of Case: Employment litigation (wages)
Electronic Data Involved: Flash drive containing original payroll records for purpose of analyzing metadata
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion for sanctions and ordered adverse inference for defendants? spoliation where defendants failed to suspend the automatic deletion function on their email which deleted both incoming and outgoing emails after three to four days and where defendants admitted to deleting relevant audio visual content from their server, court also ordered payment of attorney?s fees and costs for defendants? failure to adequately respond to the court?s order for particular information related to their preservation and collection efforts; court rejected assertions that UK Data Protection Act does not permit the retention of personal information and required deletion of emails where defendant offered no evidence that the deleted data contained personal information protected by statute and also rejected the position that the court lacked authority to order production pursuant to the Data Protection Act
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant ?was late in responding to some of plaintiff?s discovery requests, and failed to respond to Plaintiff?s good faith attempts to open a dialogue about electronic discovery? and where there was evidence that defendant knew what plaintiff was seeking but ?was deliberatively evasive and caused unnecessary delay? (by failing to produce relevant records because plaintiff had not specifically asked for documents containing specific terms, for example) the court indicted that defendant?s actions were not in line with the Federal Rules, the Seventh Circuit?s Pilot Program principles, or the Sedona Principles and ordered payment of certain of plaintiff?s fees and costs; court noted Plaintiff?s contributions to the delays by ?aggressively pursuing motions to compel and for sanctions when there may have been opportunities for more amicable resolutions? and thus declined to impose cost or fees related to duplicative or repetitive motions
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of email requiring restoration of backup tapes where defendant?s expert averred that it would cost over $270,000 and require hundreds of hours to accomplish, where plaintiff?s expert could not ?ascertain an estimate for the actual cost,? and where ?even if the actual cost of restoring the backup tapes was only a fraction? of the estimated amount, it ?would still outweigh the amount [Plaintiff] seeks to recover?
Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA
Electronic Data Involved: Emails on backup tapes
Key Insight: Where defendant indicated that the requested records were not readily searchable because the information sought was not tracked, that compliance with plaintiffs? request would require manual review of ?hundreds of thousands of claims,? that the claim files were not stored as searchable images, and that the cost of reviewing the claim files could eclipse $100,000, the court concluded that defendant had demonstrated undue burden and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel; court also indicated that plaintiffs could have pursued alternative avenues of discovery where defendant indicated that a third party maintained the information requested but failed to do so and that defendant should not be ?required to engage in labor and resource intensive discovery . . . merely because Plaintiff?s failed to subpoena a third-party . . . .?
Nature of Case: Suit arising from Defendant’s refusal to pay certain charges for services provided to insured
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied non-party?s motion to quash defendant?s subpoena where defendant adequately narrowed its request and where the non-party failed to establish that the burden of responding was undue, including by failing to provide particulars related to the expected burden of responding; court?s analysis closely followed standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)
Nature of Case: DOJ investigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court affirmed Magistrate Judge?s order requiring defendant to submit his computers for forensic examination, at his own expense, where defendant reinstalled an operating system less than two weeks after plaintiff filed a motion to compel and where, because of the loss of data, plaintiff was therefore prejudiced to an unknown extent?bad faith was not required for such an order; court affirmed order requiring corporate defendant to search hard drives of key employees, the image of a file and print server, and backup tapes dating back five years where the search was not overly broad and where defendant did not establish undue burden?despite its exorbitant estimate regarding backup tapes?in light of the large disparity between estimates from both parties, and where the court noted that much of the costs could have been avoided had SMS fulfilled its preservation duties and not converted to a less accessible format
Nature of Case: Employment litigation – sexual harassment
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.