Archive: May 17, 2006

1
Court Declines to Shift Costs of Production of E-mail from Backup Tapes, Citing Defendants’ Non-Compliant and Deceptive Discovery Tactics and Disregard of Court Orders
2
Plaintiff’s Willful and Bad Faith Spoliation of Evidence and “Hide the Ball” Tactics Warranted Default Judgment on Counterclaims

Court Declines to Shift Costs of Production of E-mail from Backup Tapes, Citing Defendants’ Non-Compliant and Deceptive Discovery Tactics and Disregard of Court Orders

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1286189 (D.N.J. May 8, 2006) (Unpublished)

In this opinion, the court addressed plaintiff’s motion to compel production of certain materials being withheld by defendants on a claim of privilege. It also denied defendants’ appeals of earlier discovery orders issued by the magistrate which imposed an adverse inference sanction for spoliation of evidence and required defendants to produce from backup tapes the e-mail of some 59 individuals. Read More

Plaintiff’s Willful and Bad Faith Spoliation of Evidence and “Hide the Ball” Tactics Warranted Default Judgment on Counterclaims

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 1308629 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2006)

In this case, plaintiff sued his former employer for breach of his employee agreement, reimbursement of back pay, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and reformation of the employee agreement. On August 25, 2005, the former employer (“Brighton”) filed a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff went to work for a competitor, STI, and misappropriated a business opportunity with a prospective Brighton client (LifeScan Scotland, Ltd.). The counterclaim alleged: (1) breach of the non-compete provision of the employee agreement, (2) breach of the confidentiality provision, (3) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, (4) violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, and (5) breach of duty. Read More

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.