Court Compels Party And Its E-Discovery Vendor To Return Hard Drive With Confidential Information Mistakenly Produced To Them In Discovery

Posted: April 15, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Channing J. Turner, Joshua Wurtzel / Categories Discovery/Disclosure, Confidentiality

Court Compels Party And Its E-Discovery Vendor To Return Hard Drive With Confidential Information Mistakenly Produced To Them In Discovery

On March 5, 2026, Justice Andrew Borrok granted a defendant’s motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to return a hard drive that contained a forensic image of a laptop with confidential information that was inadvertently produced during discovery. In Jesus Nunez-Unda v. Thibault Adrien, et al., Index No. 650971/2022, the defendant had turned over a forensic image of a laptop reflecting data at the time the plaintiff had ended his employment. However, this image also included confidential information that should have been withheld. The defendant moved for relief, which the Court granted. It explained:

The Lafayette-Defendants moved pursuant to CPLR § 3103 to compel the Plaintiff to return a hard drive that contains a forensic image of the Laptop (the Hard Drive) which includes certain confidential information that was produced by the Lafayette-Defendants but should not have been, and which is currently in the possession of the Plaintiff’s e-discovery vendor, K2 Discovery Advisors Inc. (K2). Subsequently, the Lafayette-Defendants turned over a forensic image of the Laptop which properly reflected Mr. Nunez-Unda’s laptop as of end of his employment (but which did not include the confidential information which should not have been produced and which is part of the forensic image that is on the Hard Drive).” The Plaintiff had refused to turn over the Hard Drive because, according to the Plaintiff, it provided the Plaintiff with material and necessary information to its defense to claims asserted against him regarding deletions. However, following the submission of the parties’ papers, the Lafayette-Defendants agreed to withdraw their counterclaims that allege damages stemming from the Plaintiff either deleting data on his Laptop or using his Laptop to delete data (tr. 3.3.26). Inasmuch as the deletions are no longer relevant to an issue in this case, the motion is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff must immediately turn over the Hard Drive.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan have extensive experience with discovery in litigation, including the handling of confidential or privileged information. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.