Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced ESI in .pdf format despite defendants? request for production in native format and later argued the term ?native format? was undefined, court found the term ?native format? was unambiguous and granted defendants? motion to compel the production (and re-production as was necessary) of ESI in native format
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where the court interpreted defendant?s response to plaintiff?s second motion to compel to mean that defendant had complied with its preservation obligations and may produce additional materials and explicitly required defendant to immediately notify the court if that interpretation was not accurate ? and where that interpretation was not accurate but was not corrected by defendant – court granted plaintiff?s third motion to compel and ordered defendant to produce all ESI and other responsive documents with an affidavit describing the steps taken to ensure such production and warned defendant that if ?counsel makes this kind of mistake again? the court would impose sanctions
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where a party to the litigation forwarded an email from his attorney to a third party, the court ruled that the attorney-client privilege had been waived because there was no shared legal interest between the litigant and the third party and thus the common interest doctrine did not apply but held that the protection provided by the work product doctrine had not been waived where the email was forwarded to ?a nonadversary third party? and where there was no basis for finding it likely that the third party would not keep the email confidential
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email
Key Insight: Where defendants sought to compel plaintiff?s compliance with a clawback provision intended to control the return of inadvertently produced documents but failed to establish the nature of the privilege claimed or the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, court ruled that defendants had failed to establish that the production of any document was ?inadvertent? and denied defendants? motion to compel
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Inadvertent production of privileged material by third party pursuant to subpoena waived defendants? privilege protection where third party?s disclosure was found to be tantamount to defendant?s disclosure because of the nature of their relationship and where defense counsel failed to take any steps to prevent the production of privileged materials despite being asked specifically if privilege issues were implicated in the production (to which he answered ?no?) and despite the low volume of materials produced; court noted that although there was no legal obligation for defendants to conduct a post-production review, ?had [they] done so, they might well have noticed the email at issue before Plaintiffs did, and the result in this case might have been different.?
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to categorize its production and identify which documents were responsive to which requests where plaintiff and defendant previously agreed that defendant would produce all documents from certain custodians without prior review and where plaintiff therefore could not simultaneously benefit from avoiding the risk that defendant would unilaterally filter out responsive documents while at the same time seeking to have defendant ?provide the kind of classification that plaintiff would have gotten had it made a different choice?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Defendant produced 138 emails whose attachments that were not linked, claiming it produced the documents in ?the normal course of business? and had no obligation to re-link the attachments. The court disagreed, stating that ?plaintiff must have the ability to identify which attachments belong to which emails.? Defendant argued it could not automatically re-link the emails with the attachments, but would have to ?employ a tedious manual process.? The court indicated Defendant ?cannot seek to preclude plaintiff from pursuing discovery based on a record-keeping system that is plainly inadequate.? The court found Defendant did not meet the burden to prove it would be unduly burdensome to re-link the message units and granted the motion (Defendant must provide data/software to allow Plaintiff to re-link or must re-produce the 138 emails with their attachments). The court denied the motion to compel Defendant to produce purchase and valuation documents, finding Defendant met its burden to show the requested information is not relevant to this case.
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? request for additional round of pre-certification discovery on defendant?s process of preserving, locating and producing responsive documents, since some electronic documents had been produced and only basis for motion was general ?paucity? of defendant’s document production and ?theoretical possibility? that other electronic documents might exist
Nature of Case: Putative class action against Postmaster General by deaf postal employees
Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic documents
Key Insight: Where plaintiff credibly argued that deposition testimony identified responsive but unproduced documents, court ordered defendant to certify that it had thoroughly searched for all responsive documents and to identify any documents or sets of documents that had been deleted, erased, or otherwise destroyed; although court would not require defendant to restore backup media at this juncture, it ordered defendant to identify what otherwise responsive but not readily accessible documents might be retained in archive form, on backup tapes/discs, or on any other backup media; court further ordered defendant to fully identify computers used by decision makers in plaintiff’s termination
Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act
Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI
Key Insight: Where structure of Boeing?s privilege log was result of the same emails (containing legal advice) being stored in more than one email file and/or legal advice being repeated in email strings, and Boeing listed all of the email messages by Bates number where legal communication was located, but redacted only the portion of the string that contained legal communications, court concluded that log adequately supported Boeing?s claim of privilege for multiple copies of the same communication, noting: ?The organization of a privilege log for electronic documents existing in multiple locations presents a challenge. Perhaps a better method would be to list the original legal communication by date, author and recipient and thereafter indicate that the other Bates-stamped documents are copies or a repeat of the original legal communication. However, electronic discovery is an evolving practice and Boeing will not be faulted for its efforts to organize the privilege log.?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.