Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Katt v. Titan Acquisitions, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 841 (M.D. Tenn. 2003)
2
Madden v. Wyeth, 2003 WL 21443404 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2003)
3
Nicholas v. Windham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2004)
4
SEC v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC, 231 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
5
Stricklen v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 32 F.3d 572 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 1994 WL 390001 (9th Cir. 1994) (Unpublished)
6
United States v. IBM, 76 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)
7
Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)
8
Anderson v. Crossroads Capital Partners, LLC, 2004 WL 256512 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2004)
9
Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1981)
10
Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

Katt v. Titan Acquisitions, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 841 (M.D. Tenn. 2003)

Key Insight: Despite dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims and entry of final judgment on the merits, court retained ancillary jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions for spoliation of electronic evidence for purpose of holding a hearing before ruling on the motion

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic evidence

Madden v. Wyeth, 2003 WL 21443404 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2003)

Key Insight: Confident that defense counsel would advise their clients of preservation duty and admonish them of dire consequences of violating same, court denied plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence in absence of some proof that evidence may be lost or destroyed without it

Nature of Case: Drug products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Discoverable information in paper or electronic format

Nicholas v. Windham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2004)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny enforcement of subpoena directed to plaintiffs’ nonparty company where defendants had already deposed plaintiffs and conceded that the company would have no additional information, plaintiffs would be designated Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses if discovery were allowed, and plaintiffs had already produced email from their business accounts and remained under a continuing obligation to supplement their earlier productions

Nature of Case: Ancillary proceeding to enforce subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Email

SEC v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC, 231 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Granting motion to compel contact list printed out from defendant’s contact management software program which was not timely included on defendant’s privilege log, court rejected “frivolous” argument that the contact list technically did not exist until it was printed: “For more than thirty years, Fed.R.Civ . P. 34(a) has included data stored on electronic media as being subject to a Rule 34 request. The fact that the data has not been printed out does not mean that the document does not exist. Indeed, if BH’s argument were meritorious, any party could avoid producing damaging documents through the simple expedient of storing them on electronic media and never printing them out.”

Nature of Case: SEC enforcement action

Electronic Data Involved: Email, spreadsheets and contact list

Stricklen v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 32 F.3d 572 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 1994 WL 390001 (9th Cir. 1994) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Negative inference not warranted in NTSB board proceeding where computer tapes containing radar data were destroyed pursuant to FAA policy and without notice that pilot would raise issue of near-miss

Nature of Case: Petition for review of order of NTSB revoking pilot’s airline transport certificate

Electronic Data Involved: Tapes containing radar data

United States v. IBM, 76 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

Key Insight: Defendant required to produce computerized information; conduct of defendant and technical and complex nature of production warranted appointment of examiner pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 to report to the court what materials the defendant possesses and whether defendant produced such material

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Tapes, files, programs, reports, input and output files

Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)

Key Insight: Employer entitled to discover, at its own expense, copies of database on computer disk, code books and user manual created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer to allow for effective cross-examination of EEOC’s expert; in addition, employer to pay “fair portion of the fees and expenses incurred” in the past by EEOC for the expert’s work in encoding the requested data and formulating the database

Nature of Case: Consolidated Title VII action brought by individual and EEOC

Electronic Data Involved: Database created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer

Anderson v. Crossroads Capital Partners, LLC, 2004 WL 256512 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2004)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s use of Cyberscrub data wiping software prior to court-ordered inspection of her computer and after agreeing on the record that she would not purge her hard drive or delete any documents, and her misrepresentations about age of hard drive, were not sufficiently egregious to warrant dismissal but did warrant an adverse inference instruction

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment and whistleblower claims by former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive of plaintiff’s personal computer

Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1981)

Key Insight: Subpoena seeking non-party’s software trade secrets enforced since trade secrets were relevant and necessary to patent suit and need for information outweighed possible injury to third party

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Software trade secrets of third party

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

Key Insight: Where defendant resisted production of technical specifications in electronic form because material had already been produced at great expense in hard copy form, magistrate ruled that defendant must allow plaintiff’s expert to view material in electronic form at defendant’s facility during regular business hours under and such further terms and conditions as the parties agree

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Technical specifications

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.