Court Enters Order on Sanctions in Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., Concludes Based on "Minimal Evidence" Presented that "It Is Not Clear that [Defendant] Spoliated Evidence"
Phillip M. Adams & Assoc. LLC v. Winbond Elec. Corp., 2010 WL 2977228 (D. Utah July 21, 2010)
In March 2009, the court granted in part plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and ordered the parties to present evidence of prejudice before crafting an appropriate sanction. See, Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc.,621 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Utah 2009). Following analysis of plaintiff’s “minimal evidence”, the court concluded it was “not clear that ASUS spoliated evidence.” The court nonetheless made clear the insufficiency of defendant’s preservation efforts, particularly with regard to original source code. Accordingly, the court declined to order terminating sanctions, but indicated that plaintiff would be allowed to argue to the jury that “ASUS should have the original source code to a program that it both patented and attempted to patent for many years” and that “[t]he jury will consider these facts and draw their inferences.”
