Maxpower Corp. v. Abraham, 2008 WL 1925138 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motions for preliminary injunction and for sanctions, where evidence that defendants had improperly accessed plaintiffs? computers was weak, evidence from forensic inspection of defendants? laptops was ambiguous, and ?most damning? piece of evidence was one defendant?s use of a drive cleaner on laptop after being served with summons and before laptop could be examined; court found that defendant’s proffered explanation for using the drive cleaner was not ?particularly implausible? and observed that plaintiffs could renew sanctions request if evidence later supported it

Nature of Case: Company asserted various claims against former employees, including misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with prospective business opportunity, breach of loyalty and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Employer-provided laptops; other ESI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.