Key Insight: Finding that work product protection did not apply to contested emails, court ordered their production
Nature of Case: Disabled individual alleged violations of ADA
Electronic Data Involved: Email between plaintiff and third party
Key Insight: Court ruled that no work product waiver occurred when entire computer network account of USAO paralegal was inadvertently copied onto working copy of hard drive held by prosecution as evidence and made available to defense; defense motion to retain privileged documents denied
Nature of Case: Criminal charges of conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud and securities fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents on computer hard drive
Key Insight: Granting plaintiff’s’ motion to compel production of computerized images of employment records which were created to facilitate review of the documents by geographically-dispersed defense counsel, court held that images did not constitute attorney work product since images did not contain mental impressions or legal theories and would not give plaintiffs insight into defense strategy or opinions; plaintiffs to pay only nominal copying costs and not portion of $250,000 imaging cost incurred by defendant
Nature of Case: Race discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Computerized images of employment records
Key Insight: Court ruled that, although Martha Stewart waived the attorney client privilege when she forwarded to her daughter a privileged email containing her account of the facts surrounding her sale of the stock, she did not waive work product protection
Nature of Case: Criminal proceedings re Stewart’s sale of ImClone stock
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where defendant voluntarily divulged a privileged email communication at unemployment hearing and in response to discovery request, defendant waived any privilege with respect to the communication and to testimony and documents regarding the same subject matter; trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for return of the communication and for protective order, and in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel
Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court denied Stewart’s motion to disqualify the attorney who inadvertently read Stewart’s email from cross-examining her or participating in the preparation of her cross-examination
Nature of Case: Criminal proceedings re Stewart’s sale of ImClone stock
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Federal database containing firearms tracing and licensing data which was maintained by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms was relevant to plaintiffs’ claims, and was not protected by any law enforcement privilege when produced subject to an order of confidentiality; motion to quash subpoena denied
Nature of Case: Negligence action against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of weapon used in robbery
Electronic Data Involved: Database maintained by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate’s order requiring defendants to produce all responsive electronic information in native format
Nature of Case: Securities class action
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Granting motion to compel defendant to produce email from backup tapes notwithstanding fact that restoration and retrieval costs may approach $100,000, court stated: “Upon installing a data storage system, it must be assumed that at some point in the future one may need to retrieve the information previously stored. That there may be deficiencies in the retrieval system (or inconvenience and cost associated with the actual retrieval) cannot be sufficient to defeat an otherwise good faith request to examine relevant information . . .”
Nature of Case: Valuation dispute arising as result of two merger agreements
Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on monthly backup tapes
Key Insight: Employer entitled to discover, at its own expense, copies of database on computer disk, code books and user manual created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer to allow for effective cross-examination of EEOC’s expert; in addition, employer to pay “fair portion of the fees and expenses incurred” in the past by EEOC for the expert’s work in encoding the requested data and formulating the database
Nature of Case: Consolidated Title VII action brought by individual and EEOC
Electronic Data Involved: Database created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.