Catagory:Case Summaries

1
In the Matter of Certain Network Interface Cards, 2001 WL 1217233 (U.S.I.T.C. Oct. 12, 2001)
2
Network Computing Servs. Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 392 (D.S.C. 2004)
3
Bertsch v. Duemeland, 639 N.W.2d 455 (N.D. 2002)
4
Cobell v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 324 (D.D.C. 2002)
5
Deloach v. Philip Morris Co., 206 F.R.D. 568 (M.D.N.C. 2002)
6
Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)
7
Hypro, LLC v. Reser, 2004 WL 2905321 (D. Minn. Dec. 10, 2004)
8
Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)
9
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson, 2004 WL 2905399 (W.D. Tenn. May 3, 2004)
10
In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 292 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D. Mass. 2003)

In the Matter of Certain Network Interface Cards, 2001 WL 1217233 (U.S.I.T.C. Oct. 12, 2001)

Key Insight: Where there were gaps in plaintiff’s production of email, administrative law judge granted motion to compel production of email from plaintiff’s backup tapes but ordered parties to share the costs of such production

Nature of Case: Case before the U.S. International Trade Commission

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Network Computing Servs. Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 392 (D.S.C. 2004)

Key Insight: Concluding that plaintiff’s discovery abuse warranted sanctions, district court ruled that appropriate sanction would be to inform the jury about plaintiff’s misconduct, since monetary sanctions previously imposed had not deterred further misconduct and extreme sanction of dismissal was not warranted by the facts

Electronic Data Involved: Breach of distributorship agreement, fraud, unfair trade practices and related torts

Cobell v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 324 (D.D.C. 2002)

Key Insight: Government’s motion for “protective order clarifying that it may produce email in response to discovery requests by producing from paper records of email messages rather than from backup tapes and may overwrite backup tapes in accordance with Departmental directives” denied as inappropriate given history of dispute; plaintiffs awarded attorneys’ fees and costs associated with motion

Nature of Case: Suit against the government alleging mismanagement of Indian trust funds

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Deloach v. Philip Morris Co., 206 F.R.D. 568 (M.D.N.C. 2002)

Key Insight: Where defendant withheld computerized data and defense expert subsequently used data in rebuttal report, court allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to defendants’ rebuttal expert report, and ruled that defendants would not be allowed opportunity to reply to plaintiffs’ response to the withheld information

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized transaction data

Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)

Key Insight: Where evidence showed there was no feasible and economic electronic means by which certain data could be produced, court ruled that, to the extent defendants intended to introduce evidence related to such data at trial, defendants would be required to produce all such evidence, documentary, electronic or otherwise, upon which they intend to rely

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding damages, offsets and class member eligibility

Hypro, LLC v. Reser, 2004 WL 2905321 (D. Minn. Dec. 10, 2004)

Key Insight: In light of defendant’s previous attempt to delete incriminating email and documents from his company laptop, court entered order requiring all parties to preserve and protect evidence

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of corporate opportunity and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents and mail

Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)

Key Insight: EPA violated preliminary injunction that prohibited destruction of potentially responsive documents by reformatting hard drives and erasing or overwriting backup tapes containing potentially responsive email; EPA held in civil contempt and ordered to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of EPA’s contumacious conduct

Nature of Case: FOIA action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and email stored on backup tapes

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Michelson, 2004 WL 2905399 (W.D. Tenn. May 3, 2004)

Key Insight: Declining to determine whether its May 13, 2003 order contemplated the production of deleted files, court overruled defendant’s objections to special master’s order denying request for production of deleted files, finding that defendant’s request was untimely and that “the process of recovering deleted files at this late stage of litigation would be an undue burden on Medtronic and is based, the court’s opinion, on mere speculation that relevant deleted files could be recovered”

Nature of Case: Intellectual property litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted files

In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 292 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D. Mass. 2003)

Key Insight: Granting summary judgment for defendants, court noted that pursuant to an earlier order, plaintiffs’ expert was given unrestricted access to the hard drives of Pharmatrak’s computer servers over one-month period, and stated that plaintiffs characterization of its expert’s search of Pharmatrak’s computer servers as a “partial” inspection was unsupported by the record and failed to raise an issue of fact

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that defendants secretly intercepted and accessed plaintiffs’ personal information and browsing habits through unlawful use of cookies and other devices

Electronic Data Involved: Inspection of computer servers

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