Archive - April 13, 2006

Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 897218 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2006)

In this patent and copyright infringement case, plaintiff requested the production of customer communications regarding defendant’s purported “Prebate agreement” for a toner cartridge that was in issue. According to plaintiff, defendant had claimed that there were as many as 60,000 records on its “pre-sale customer inquiry database” that could be responsive to the request. In its motion to compel, plaintiff requested that defendant “back up” the database containing the requested documents and produce the database to plaintiff, with plaintiff to bear the burden of extracting any data so as to eliminate any undue burden on defendant. Read More

In re BP Prods., N. Am., Inc., 2006 WL 648816 (Tex. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2006)

In this opinion, a Texas appellate court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by BP Products North America, Inc., which complained that the trial judge abused her discretion by compelling BP to produce, by March 17, 2006, “all e-data derived from backup tapes and maintained on computer hard drives under BP’s control” that were responsive to the plaintiffs’ steering committee’s request, as identified in the court’s February 6, 2006 order and in the manner specified in the order. The appellate court had previously denied BP’s request for emergency relief requesting a stay of the February 6, 2006 order. Read More

Liturgical Publ’ns, Inc. v. Karides, 2006 WL 931892 (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2006) (Unpublished)

In this case, plaintiff asserted claims for employee disloyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets and computer theft against two former employees and their competing company. The trial court dismissed several claims on summary judgment, including the computer theft claim. After a jury trial on the remaining claims resulted in a defense verdict, plaintiff appealed. In conjunction with arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim for computer theft, plaintiff argued that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying its motion to compel additional discovery on the issue. Read More