Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Ex Parte Vulcan Materials Co., 2008 WL 1838309 (Ala. Apr. 25, 2008)
2
Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)
3
Displaylink Corp. v. Magic Control Tech. Corp., 2008 WL 2915390 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2008)
4
Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC., 2008 WL 2277118 (D. Nev. May 29, 2008)
5
Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc., 2008 WL 4379607 (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2008) (Unpublished)
6
Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)
7
Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)
8
Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2008 WL 5234270 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008)
9
Llamas v. State, 270 S.W. 3d. 274 (Tex. App. 2008)
10
S. Capitol Enters., Inc. v. Conseco Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 4724427 (M.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)

Ex Parte Vulcan Materials Co., 2008 WL 1838309 (Ala. Apr. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Adopting the same approach as that in Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 2007 WL 3121813 (Ala. Oct. 26, 2007), Alabama Supreme Court directed trial court to reconsider Vulcan?s motion for a protective order as to emails sought in light of FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) and Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004) and in light of Vulcan?s arguments that the requested emails likely constitute work product and would not likely lead to relevant information

Nature of Case: Company petitioned for writ of mandamus seeking review of trial court?s order on post-trial discovery related to motion for remittitur of punitive damages awarded in underlying action for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)

Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?

Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server

Displaylink Corp. v. Magic Control Tech. Corp., 2008 WL 2915390 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2008)

Key Insight: Where requested source code was relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and stipulated protective order was in place which addressed confidentiality concerns, court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of source code

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC., 2008 WL 2277118 (D. Nev. May 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Where neither party would be able to conclusively prove ownership of disputed technology without analysis of source code, court concluded that documents related to source code and other technology plaintiff claimed as trade secret were ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and ordered plaintiff to produce responsive documents and ESI

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Source code and related technology

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2008 WL 4936745 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel compliance with subpoena seeking forensic image of third-party competitor?s computer where third party asserted it had no relevant documents on its computers, where an expert?s search confirmed that assertion and where plaintiff failed to establish third party?s possession of documents sought; regarding plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s search was incomplete where it did not include titles or phrases from documents not included in the complaint, court ordered meet and confer regarding supplemental search terms and for third party to allow forensic expert to conduct search

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

Opperman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5071044 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for access to third party?s proprietary software where court determined software and its underlying processes were relevant to plaintiffs? claims and that all less intrusive means to obtain the necessary information had been exhausted; court?s order allowed access to the software by plaintiffs? expert but protected the confidentiality of the information with a protective order that placed limitations on who may access the software and limited the use of the information solely to the litigation

Nature of Case: Challenge to accuracy of insurance company estimates for fire damage

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary software

Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2008 WL 5234270 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008)

Key Insight: Rejecting each of defendant?s objections, court adopted Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge imposing monetary sanctions for discovery violations but did not adopt recommendation for adverse inference instruction because summary judgment in favor of defendant rendered issue moot

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code, document retention policies

Llamas v. State, 270 S.W. 3d. 274 (Tex. App. 2008)

Key Insight: Appellate court found no abuse of discretion in trial court?s decision to admit surveillance footage of armed robbery into record after State provided testimony regarding chain of custody and where officer in charge of transferring data to DVD testified DVD contained exact replica of the original footage

Nature of Case: Capital murder

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

S. Capitol Enters., Inc. v. Conseco Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 4724427 (M.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)

Key Insight: Noting that ?perfection in document production is not required?, court denied plaintiffs? motion for sanctions or additional discovery orders where defendants offered valid reasons for the non-production of some data, performed a thorough search of their systems for the requested information, and explained that there were no other sources to search and where the burden of production outweighed the likely benefit; court indicated that ?experts can extrapolate and estimate from available data in order to perform calculations and provide opinions.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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