Key Insight: Where nonparty merely asserted, without adequate factual support, that compliance with the subpoena would cause it to incur ?significant expenses,? court denied nonparty?s request for costs for time spent by its employees configuring and executing electronic search and by attorneys reviewing results of search
Nature of Case: Breach of limited partnership agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI
Key Insight: Where non-party used outside computer firm to handle its electronic data and estimated that cost to comply with subpoena would be $7,200, court found that data was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but ordered production in light of good cause shown, with cost of production to be paid by party who issued subpoena
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Routine business documents stored electronically
Key Insight: Court rejected defendants’ claim that they had no control over third party’s ?computerized infrastructure? and ordered production of electronic pension plan records by defendants; because ERISA sets out employer’s responsibilities for the proper maintenance and retention of pension and welfare plan records and employer cannot delegate those duties, records maintained by third party were in “possession, custody or control” of defendants for purposes of discovery
Nature of Case: Claims under ERISA
Electronic Data Involved: Pension and welfare plan records maintained by third party
Key Insight: Court concluded that any privilege that may have attached to documents inadvertently produced on CD was waived, since non-party?s counsel failed to exercise due care when he produced CD without first reviewing it, failed to immediately accept party?s offer to temporarily halt its document review after he was alerted that some of the documents on CD appeared to be internal communications with counsel, and furnished an inadequate privilege log after two-week delay
Nature of Case: Litigation between gas company and landowners
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents inadvertently produced on CD
Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production
Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election
Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer
Key Insight: Magistrate denied third party’s motion to stay discovery order requiring him to give permission to Google, Inc. to produce emails from his gmail account, where third party failed to establish any likelihood of success on appeal or that the balance of hardships tipped in his favor; court was “skeptical” of third party’s unsubstantiated arguments that the volume of email was large and that attorney review would be unduly costly, and noted that “email could likely be screened efficiently through the use of electronic search terms that the parties agreed upon”
Nature of Case: Allegations of consumer fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Email in third party’s Google email account
Key Insight: Court denied motion to quash as overbroad plaintiff?s subpoena to current employer of defendant which sought, among other things: documents and information describing any type of work that defendant performed, including solicitations and proposals, all documents and communications (including emails) he sent or received, and every computer or electronic equipment and he touched, including all backups, as well as extensive information about current employer’s practices and policies regarding document retention and computer backup; court further granted motion to compel defendant to produce similar information; parties to observe confidentiality order
Nature of Case: Action by employer against former employee based upon non-competition agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Computer and electronic equipment “touched” by former employee; email
Key Insight: Magistrate issued Certification of Facts for a Finding of Contempt relating to conduct of non-party Brett Cormier, a relative and employer of plaintiff who had consistently failed to comply with discovery orders or produce salary and employment records; court had previously stated: “The Court is still reluctant to order an inspection of Cormier’s computer, at his expense, to obtain this information since it seems an extreme, expensive, and unnecessarily invasive process to obtain what should be relatively easy information about Plaintiff’s income. However, Cormier must be more cooperative in producing the limited information requested of him or the Court may be left with no other option. . . . Work history and salary information is simple, straightforward information that every reputable business maintains in a variety of easily retrievable formats, and the Court simply does not accept the representations heretofore made for why Brett Cormier cannot locate this information. This issue is getting tiresome and has occupied far too much of this Court’s time and energy.”
Nature of Case: Personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: Salary and employment information
Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice Doe defendant’s motion to quash subpoena issued to defendant’s ISP which argued that court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, since consideration of personal jurisdiction was premature and plaintiffs had made prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over defendant
Nature of Case: Record companies brought infringement action arising out of internet file sharing of digital sound recordings
Electronic Data Involved: IP logs maintained by Internet Service Provider
Key Insight: Magistrate denied defendant’s motion for contempt order under Rule 45(e) for non-party’s alleged failure to comply with subpoena and court order, where non-party had produced roughly 3,500 pages of responsive documents, and reason for non-production of four particular emails (given to defendant by ex-employee of non-party) was because non-party did not have possession of and could not produce them since the computer and server that once contained them were no longer available to non-party
Nature of Case: Sex discrimination/harassment
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.