Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D. Pa. 2007)
2
Gupta v. Walt Disney World Co., 2007 WL 4165934 (11th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)
3
3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 2972921 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2007)
4
Agassi Enters., Inc. v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 4441195 (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2007)
5
Stroupe v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2007 WL 3223224 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2007)
6
Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)
7
Ameriwood ind., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 5110313 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007)
8
Wiley v. Paulson, 2007 WL 7059722 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007)
9
Memry Corp. v. Ky. Oil Tech., N.V., 2007 WL 832937 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2007) (not for citation)
10
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 210018 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2007)

Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D. Pa. 2007)

Key Insight: Spoliation sanctions were not warranted for defendant’s failure to preserve copies of screenshots that may have been automatically stored in temporary cache files of defendant’s computers, since plaintiff’s counsel’s preservation letter said nothing about preserving temporary cache files, defendant had no reason to believe such files were relevant, files were deleted automatically and not through any affirmative action by defendant, defendant produced forensic images of its hard drives, and plaintiff established little if any prejudice from loss of cache files

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and violations of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of archived website screenshots automatically stored in temporary cache files of defendant’s computers

Gupta v. Walt Disney World Co., 2007 WL 4165934 (11th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied, without holding an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery about work schedules that plaintiff alleged were forged, where plaintiff provided no support for his allegation that Walt Disney removed his name from the work schedules produced and Walt Disney presented evidence that records produced were copies of electronically maintained records, kept in the usual course of business, and were printed off the computer in the form in which they were maintained

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work schedules

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 2972921 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2007)

Key Insight: Where responsive emails which had been inadvertently omitted from initial production as a result of human error in manual search were promptly produced after being mentioned in deposition, court ordered defendant to submit a declaration certifying that all non-privileged documents had been produced and detailing what defendants and their employees did to ensure a complete production

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Agassi Enters., Inc. v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 4441195 (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2007)

Key Insight: Granting preliminary injunction, court further ordered defendant to “preserve all documents and other evidence (including, but not limited to, electronic documents such as email relating to its use of the AGASSI name . . .” and, within 30 days of the order, to file and serve a report detailing the manner and form in which Target complied with the preliminary injunction

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents, email

Stroupe v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2007 WL 3223224 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2007)

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction not warranted for defendant’s routine destruction of surveillance videotapes created on date of incident; defendant presented evidence that there was no videotape that depicted the subject area where the incident occurred and plaintiff did not show that destroyed videotapes contained any images or information relevant to any issue at trial

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotapes

Glass v. Beer, 2007 WL 1456059 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants submitted evidence under penalty of perjury explaining reasons why they were able to locate only two of the four requested videotapes despite three searches, and defendant submitted no evidence that defendants had tampered with evidence, that the tape was intentionally destroyed, or that defendants were lying, court denied motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: State prisoner asserted civil rights claims claiming use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotapes

Ameriwood ind., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 5110313 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants used “Window Washer” disk scrubbing software on hard drives just days before they were to be turned over to forensic expert, and also performed “mass deletions” of electronic files, court found that defendants’ intentional actions evidenced a serious disregard for the judicial process and had prejudiced plaintiff; court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiff and shifted to defendants plaintiff’s costs, attorney’s fees, and computer expert’s fees relating to motions for sanctions and forensic imaging and recovery of defendants’ hard drives; jury trial to proceed solely on issue of plaintiff’s damages

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Memry Corp. v. Ky. Oil Tech., N.V., 2007 WL 832937 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2007) (not for citation)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for access to defendant’s computer hard drives because computer content was not inextricably related to the basis of the lawsuit, defendant had represented that it conducted reasonable search of its computer hard drives for responsive information and moving party could point to only two missing emails out of thousands that were produced, and fact discovery had closed

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 210018 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied Spain’s motion to reconsider November 3, 2006 Opinion and Order rejecting the various reasons offered as support

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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