Archive - 2006

CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. General Elec. Co., 2006 WL 1272615 (D. Conn. Feb. 6, 2006)

In this recently published case, plaintiff found fault with defendants’ production of 301,539 pages of documents in response to its 131 requests for production. Plaintiff moved to compel defendants (1) to supplement their production so as to identify every document which is responsive to each of plaintiff’s requests for production; (2) to organize and label each responsive document to correspond to the categories of plaintiff’s requests; and (3) to produce the “native” or “original” electronic documents identified as “Personal Folder Files” (“PST files”) which, plaintiff alleged, underlie the hundreds of thousands of pages of emails and accompanying attachments comprising defendants’ production “as they are kept in the normal course of business.” Plaintiff argued that, due to the volume and disorganized state of defendants’ production, defendants should be required to organize and label the documents produced to correspond to plaintiff’s requests for production. Plaintiff complained that thousands of emails were separated from their attachments, thousands of pages of “gibberish” were produced, and documents were commingled and, thus, were not produced as kept in the ordinary course of business. Plaintiff further claimed that the PST files, as they are kept in the ordinary course of business, would drastically reduce the time needed to prepare an index of defendants’ documents. Read More

Ukiah Auto. Invs. v. Mitsubishi Motors of N. Am., Inc., 2006 WL 1348562 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2006)

In this brief order, the magistrate judge ruled on the parties’ discovery disputes, including Mitsubishi’s request for an order permitting it to inspect the computer used to record Ukiah’s business transactions. Although Ukiah claimed that it had produced all relevant documents from the computer in paper form, Mitsubishi argued that this was insufficient because many financial statements were missing. Ukiah further claimed that the computer was no longer operational. Ukiah requested that any inspection be conducted by a neutral at Mitsubishi’s expense. Read More

Kaufman v. SunGard Inv. Sys., 2006 WL 1307882 (D.N.J. May 10, 2006) (Unpublished)

This case is similar to Curto v. Med. World Communications, Inc., 2006 WL 1318387 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2006), but it reaches a different result. Read More

Curto v. Med. World Communications, Inc., 2006 WL 1318387 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2006)

In this opinion, the district court denied defendants’ objections to a magistrate’s discovery order which concluded that plaintiff had not waived any attorney-client privilege or work product protection as to documents originally created on (but subsequently deleted from) two employer-provided laptops. Read More

Quotient, Inc. v. Toon, 2005 WL 4006493 (Md. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2005)

In this case, Quotient alleged that while still a Quotient employee, Mr. Toon intentionally and surreptitiously provided a former Quotient employee access to Quotient’s computer system so that the former employee could obtain Quotient’s trade secrets and confidential information and use such information to compete with Quotient. Quotient sought an order to permit Quotient’s retained computer expert access to “Toon’s personal computer system, hard drives and back-up hard drives, disks, C.D.’s and/or other data, back up devices or vehicles in order to capture an image of these items.” Quotient represented it would pay the full and complete cost of the copying process and would abide by any restriction on access and use imposed by the court. Read More

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

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

Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Rogers, 2006 WL 1207962 (E.D. La. May 3, 2006)

The court’s order enjoined the defendants and their employees or agents from soliciting any current employee of the plaintiff for employment. It also required the defendants to return to the plaintiff, through counsel, “any tangible property (including all copies, recordings and other reproductions), if any at all, in either of their possession owned or provided by Cardinal, which tangible property was not returned to Cardinal at the conclusion of their employment with Cardinal.” The property to be returned included: Read More

Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 1174040 (D. Kan. May 1, 2006)

In this (uncertified) consumer class action, the court considered plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of documents. Defendant contended that plaintiffs’ production requests exceeded the scope of class certification discovery, and were vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. For example, defendant asserted that approximately 31 million vehicles were serviced annually at company-owned and franchised Jiffy Lube stores, and that plaintiffs’ request for all vehicle service records going back to January 1, 1997 was unduly burdensome and overly broad. Plaintiffs responded that defendant failed to carry its burden of showing “undue burden” and that the requested documents could be produced in electronic format at a minimal cost. Read More