Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Promega Corp. v. Applera Corp., 2002 WL 32340886 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2002)
2
Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Cal. 1996)
3
Superior Consultant Co. v. Bailey, 2000 WL 1279161 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2000)
4
United States v. Koch Ind., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 463 (N.D. Okl. 1998)
5
Williams v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 360, 2002 WL 1477618 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002)
6
Markham v. Nat’l States Ins. Co., 2004 WL 3019308 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 8, 2004)
7
Walker v. Cash Flow Consultants, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 613 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
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)

Promega Corp. v. Applera Corp., 2002 WL 32340886 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2002)

Key Insight: After plaintiffs objected to production of sales database because it was not organized to its liking, and defendants produced two further iterations in an attempt to respond to plaintiffs’ complaints, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “complete and accurate” database since court “was not convinced that defendants have failed to produce this information, even if it is not in the ideal format plaintiff desires”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Sales database

Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Cal. 1996)

Key Insight: Brief reference to court’s granting plaintiff’s requested ex parte TRO and seizure order to seize computers and hardware, copy memory, and delete pirated software before returning items to defendant

Nature of Case: Copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and memory devices (video game software)

Superior Consultant Co. v. Bailey, 2000 WL 1279161 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2000)

Key Insight: Reference to previously entered TRO, ordering, among other things, that the parties neither destroy, alter, modify nor conceal any relevant data, including data stored on computer media, that defendants create and thereafter produce to defense counsel a backup file of defendant Bailey’s laptop computer, and a backup file of any personal computer hard-drive to which defendant Bailey has had access at any time, and that defendants produce a redacted copy of these hard-drive backup files to plaintiff’s counsel within three days after entry of the TRO; subsequent preliminary injunction included similar provisions

Nature of Case: Employer sued former employee for breach of employment contract, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Databases containing sales and customer information

United States v. Koch Ind., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 463 (N.D. Okl. 1998)

Key Insight: Defendant was negligent in failing to determine which computer tapes in tape library contained information relevant to imminent and ongoing litigation and in failing to communicate clear guidelines regarding preservation of information to data processing personnel and tape librarian; no adverse inference, but plaintiff could inform jury about destruction of tapes and impact on plaintiff’s proof

Nature of Case: Action under False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer tapes

Williams v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 360, 2002 WL 1477618 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002)

Key Insight: Defendant’s production of email five days before trial was to begin did not warrant sanctions, where emails were not produced previously because defendant had changed email systems (thus rendering all previous emails irretrievable) and where email was produced as soon as it was discovered during trial prep of witness; discovery deadline extended

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination (age discrimination)

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Markham v. Nat’l States Ins. Co., 2004 WL 3019308 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 8, 2004)

Key Insight: After jury awarded plaintiffs $225,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, court considered as a post-judgment matter the issue of whether to impose sanctions against defendant for discovery abuse, allowing parties to conduct further discovery on the impact of defendant’s noncompliance and scheduling an evidentiary hearing on the issue

Nature of Case: Heirs of insured sued insurance company for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, false representation and deceit

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized claims information

Walker v. Cash Flow Consultants, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 613 (N.D. Ill. 2001)

Key Insight: While granting without prejudice defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to certify class, court found that plaintiff’s request for entry of a document preservation order was overbroad but not entirely unnecessary, and entered a more narrow document preservation order

Nature of Case: Class action alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer information relating to defendant’s debt collection policies

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 © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.