Kmart Corp. shouldn't be penalized for cleaning up its digital-document drawers, according to a recent case summary from K&L Gates. The Superior Court of the Virgin Islands had ordered the company to produce 21 categories of documents for a suit in which it was a nonparty, and some of the documents dated back to 1991.

The company produced some documentation, but not enough to satisfy the plaintiff. “Kmart explained, for example, that it did not maintain records pertaining to merchandise sales by year prior to 2000,” note the lawyers from K&L Gates. The plaintiff then tried to get the company declared in contempt of court.

Though the court acknowledged it gave a “clear and unambiguous order” for Kmart to produce the documents, it refused to hold the company in contempt, says the brief. Instead, the judge noted that Kmart made a “diligent attempt to comply” and that its document retention policy didn't allow the company to keep records from before 2005.