Catagory:Case Summaries

1
On Time Aviation, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 2006 WL 2092075 (D. Conn. July 26, 2006)
2
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)
3
Kay S. v. Mark S., 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)
4
Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 3371576 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006)
5
Interbake Foods, LLC v. Tomaseillo, 461 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2006)
6
Kiliszek v. Nelson, Watson & Assocs., LLC, 2006 WL 335788 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2006)
7
Select Med. Corp. v. Hardaway, 2006 WL 859741 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006)
8
Pure-Flo MPC, LLC v. Bio Fab Techs., Inc., 2006 WL 1389115 (E.D. Wis. May 12, 2006)
9
Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)
10
Columbus McKinnon Corp. v. HealthNow New York, Inc., 2006 WL 2827675 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006)

On Time Aviation, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 2006 WL 2092075 (D. Conn. July 26, 2006)

Key Insight: Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate’s discovery rulings, concluding that absence of particular email from production did not mean that expert had intentionally hidden or destroyed it, particularly when expert was not listed as a recipient and testified that he did not recall receiving it

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ appeal of magistrate’s order and would permit plaintiffs to raise evidentiary objections to certain evidence at trial, notwithstanding terms of pretrial order which required in limine motions to be filed by certain date, since defendants’ tardy production of hundreds of responsive emails and/or non-compliance with discovery orders made it impossible for plaintiffs to raise those objections as motions in limine

Nature of Case: Beneficiaries of employment benefit health plans asserted class action claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kay S. v. Mark S., 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)

Key Insight: Appellate court found there was appearance of impropriety which warranted trial judge’s disqualification; on remand, new judge to consider, among other things, mother’s request for production of hard drive from father’s work computer

Nature of Case: Divorce proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 3371576 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant demonstrated that serious questions existed both as to the reliability and the completeness of materials produced in discovery by plaintiff, including the possible alteration of email, court concluded that forensic examination of defendant’s hard drives was warranted; court ordered counsel for the parties to meet and confer regarding a protocol for the imaging and subsequent production of responsive documents

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives; email

Interbake Foods, LLC v. Tomaseillo, 461 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2006)

Key Insight: Court entered preliminary injunction enjoining former employee from violating his confidentiality agreement and ordering him to preserve “all information currently stored on his personal computers, personal digital assistant, mobile telephone, including any information stored on backup media for a period of 180 days”; order also required employee’s new employer to preserve all information currently stored on its computers relating in any way to its recruitment and employment of the defendant, or its ice cream sandwich wafer operations, during the pendency of the litigation

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files containing sensitive product information

Kiliszek v. Nelson, Watson & Assocs., LLC, 2006 WL 335788 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) motion to delay adjudication of summary judgment motion to allow further discovery where collection agency did not retain hard copies of collection letters but instead noted the nature and types of letters on a debtor overview report and saved copies of form letters, and where dispute existed over whether an exhibit submitted in support of defendant’s motion was an accurate reproduction of defendant’s initial communication to plaintiff or a fabrication

Nature of Case: Debtor sued collection agency under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer record of collection activity and form letters

Select Med. Corp. v. Hardaway, 2006 WL 859741 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation inference based upon former employee’s deletion of files on home computer, since plaintiff could not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from alleged spoliation or show that former employee was “at fault” for deleting the files, i.e., that he intended to impair plaintiff’s ability to uncover evidence; employee claimed to have deleted the files to ensure that he no longer had access to plaintiff’s information after he resigned his employment

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Files on former employee’s home computer

Pure-Flo MPC, LLC v. Bio Fab Techs., Inc., 2006 WL 1389115 (E.D. Wis. May 12, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for accelerated discovery and immediate inspection and copying of defendants’ computers by computer forensic specialist designated by plaintiff, since plaintiff had not yet filed its preliminary injunction motion: ?The Court will not accelerate and expand discovery beyond the parameters annunciated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to help the parties prepare for an evidentiary hearing that may never take place.?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, confidential business information

Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to overbroad request for all emails, finding that defendants’ production of all existing emails sent to or from plaintiff, or pertaining to plaintiff’s performance during relevant time period was a reasonable attempt to provide responsive information; court further rejected plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause regarding possible spoliation, concluding that it was not reasonable for defendants “to have foreseen that all e-mails would be relevant to plaintiff’s situation”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Columbus McKinnon Corp. v. HealthNow New York, Inc., 2006 WL 2827675 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court rejected defendant’s excuses for extended delay in producing itemization of withdrawals in a format usable by plaintiff, and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reasonable cost of attorneys’ fees incurred in moving for contempt of court’s prior order

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Billing records, backup tapes, DVDs

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