Catagory:Case Summaries

1
U.S. v. Bunty, 2008 WL 2371211, (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)
2
Atmel Corp. v. Authentec Inc., 2008 WL 276393 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2008)
3
Diabetes Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Healthpia Am., Inc., 2008 WL 336382 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008)
4
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 2008 WL 744723 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008)
5
Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 1969596 (E.D. Wis. May 5, 2008)
6
ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2008 WL 2227556 (D. Utah May 28, 2008)
7
Yu v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 2008 WL 2152138 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2008)
8
Dean v. New Werner Holding Co., Inc., 2008 WL 2560707 (D. Kan. June 26, 2008)
9
Lowery v. County of Riley, 2008 WL 3562061 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2008)
10
White v. Graceland Coll. Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc., 2008 WL 4427269 (D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2008)

Atmel Corp. v. Authentec Inc., 2008 WL 276393 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s Rule 30(b)(6) designee testified that he did not know whether files of CEO or nine key players had been searched for responsive documents, defendant demonstrated a ?serious question? as to the adequacy of plaintiff?s search and court ordered plaintiff to search email and computers of plaintiff and nine key players and submit declaration(s) from most knowledgeable person(s) detailing the searches performed

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Diabetes Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Healthpia Am., Inc., 2008 WL 336382 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Where court found that defendants may not have taken adequate steps to preserve emails through a backup process but followed the company’s standard procedures, and if anything, there was negligence derived from lax electronic document maintenance procedures, and that plaintiff?s counsel, at most, may have been lax in that inadequate direction and oversight was given to associate to guide her search for relevant and responsive emails, court concluded that, while all parties were remiss in fulfilling their discovery obligations, there was no evidence of ?bad faith? on the part of either party to warrant an instruction on spoliation and denied parties’ competing sanctions motions

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, laptops

Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mack, 2008 WL 744723 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Sixth Circuit affirmed district court’s entry of default judgment and subsequent default award of $3,430,983.69 damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees as sanction for defendant’s egregious discovery abuse; among other things, defendant failed to comply with Parties? Agreed Order regarding electronic discovery, replaced company computers despite pending litigation, refused to produce home computer even though he admitted it had been used for business purposes, refused to produce key player?s computer, and failed to turn over all electronic evidence

Nature of Case: Fraud and RICO claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, email

Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 1969596 (E.D. Wis. May 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Where source code had probative value and would be covered by protective order, court ordered defendant to produce it and suggested that parties coordinate to limit its disclosure to only specified experts and individuals at Metavante with requisite technical expertise needed to effectively evaluate the source code

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Chiang, 2008 WL 2227556 (D. Utah May 28, 2008)

Key Insight: Where degree and substantiality of similarity between parties’ respective source codes was at issue, court found that the WideBand source code was directly relevant to whether copying had occurred and ordered the Wideband defendants to produce the source code in its entirety

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Yu v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 2008 WL 2152138 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2008)

Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery matters, court noted plaintiff?s belated complaint that documents were not produced in ESI format and defendants? offer to convert their document production into OCR files, ?a more searchable form than the PDF format it originally provided,? and ordered plaintiff to advise defense counsel within three days if he desired such conversion; court further noted that plaintiff?s request for email was overbroad and that he had failed to justify requiring defendants to undertake a large-scale search of their backup tapes; court further ordered plaintiff to return employer-issued laptop computer to defendant

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, laptop

Lowery v. County of Riley, 2008 WL 3562061 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ motion to stay all discovery pending resolution of not-yet-filed petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, set Rule 16(b) scheduling conference, directed parties to conduct Rule 26(f) planning conference, and instructed parties to familiarize themselves with 2006 e-discovery amendments to FRCP, review ESI guidelines posted on court’s Internet website, and become knowledgeable about their clients’ information management systems and their operation, including how information is stored and retrieved

Nature of Case: Coercion, failure to investigate, fabrication of evidence, and malicious prosecution

Electronic Data Involved: ESI generally

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.