Archive - May 2006

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 1308629 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2006)

In this case, plaintiff sued his former employer for breach of his employee agreement, reimbursement of back pay, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and reformation of the employee agreement. On August 25, 2005, the former employer (“Brighton”) filed a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff went to work for a competitor, STI, and misappropriated a business opportunity with a prospective Brighton client (LifeScan Scotland, Ltd.). The counterclaim alleged: (1) breach of the non-compete provision of the employee agreement, (2) breach of the confidentiality provision, (3) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, (4) violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, and (5) breach of duty. Read More

Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Rogers, 2006 WL 1207962 (E.D. La. May 3, 2006)

The court’s order enjoined the defendants and their employees or agents from soliciting any current employee of the plaintiff for employment. It also required the defendants to return to the plaintiff, through counsel, “any tangible property (including all copies, recordings and other reproductions), if any at all, in either of their possession owned or provided by Cardinal, which tangible property was not returned to Cardinal at the conclusion of their employment with Cardinal.” The property to be returned included: Read More

Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 1174040 (D. Kan. May 1, 2006)

In this (uncertified) consumer class action, the court considered plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of documents. Defendant contended that plaintiffs’ production requests exceeded the scope of class certification discovery, and were vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. For example, defendant asserted that approximately 31 million vehicles were serviced annually at company-owned and franchised Jiffy Lube stores, and that plaintiffs’ request for all vehicle service records going back to January 1, 1997 was unduly burdensome and overly broad. Plaintiffs responded that defendant failed to carry its burden of showing “undue burden” and that the requested documents could be produced in electronic format at a minimal cost. Read More