Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. American Viatical Servs., LLC, 2007 WL 3492762 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2007)
2
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 4239453 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2007)
3
Willbros Eng’rs, Inc. v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 2007 WL 2891500 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 28, 2007)
4
APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 3046233 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007)
5
Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2007 WL 3232501 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2007
6
Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 4939048 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007)
7
Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, 2007 WL 1725604 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2007)
8
McKenna v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 2007 WL 433291 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2007)
9
G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, P.A., 2007 WL 773722 (D. Kan. Mar. 9, 2007)
10
Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 1113800 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. American Viatical Servs., LLC, 2007 WL 3492762 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a complete copy of defendant’s Sequel database, and any historical backup copies of database spanning relevant time period, since it was highly relevant to parties’ claims and defenses and defendant had not articulated a valid legal basis for resisting its disclosure; court further ordered that the database was to be treated as “Highly Confidential” pursuant to court’s confidentiality order

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Willbros Eng’rs, Inc. v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 2007 WL 2891500 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 28, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s attorneys? repeated inaccurate representations that all responsive documents had been produced demonstrated gross negligence but not intentional bad faith, and belated production necessitated re-opening discovery and continuing trial date, court concluded that requested sanction of dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and default judgment against plaintiff on cross-claims was too harsh and that lesser (monetary) sanctions were appropriate

Nature of Case: Construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files relating to $100 million construction project, computer index, audiotapes of meetings

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 3046233 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant traveled 20 miles to dispose of his computer in a construction site dumpster within days of receiving notice of lawsuit, court found that defendant acted in bad faith but that sanction of default judgment was too severe since plaintiff’s claims were not “severely” or “incurably” prejudiced as a result; court instead deemed certain facts conclusively proven and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with motion and related discovery

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2007 WL 3232501 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2007

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enter and inspect crossing area and directed defendant to arrange for an employee to be on-site during the inspection to provide a download of all available date from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system stored on-site; court denied motion to compel production of particular employee’s computer since the computer had been returned to a vendor and defendant had already produced a copy of computer’s hard drive

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 4939048 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Where discovery missteps which resulted in delayed production of notebooks were merely negligent and not reckless or intentional, court imposed penalty of cost-shifting and reimbursement in the amount of $50,000 and declined to impose any of the ?inquisitorial sanctions? demanded by plaintiff; court further ruled that ?no [defense] attorneys will be dragged behind a chariot outside the city’s walls.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Scientists’ notebooks that were converted into electronic format

Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, 2007 WL 1725604 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2007)

Key Insight: Finding that defendant had destroyed her computer and modem equipment with knowledge of her duty to preserve relevant evidence and in an attempt to protect herself from plaintiffs’ claims, court declined to enter default judgment and would instead: (1) preclude her from offering certain evidence and arguments at trial, and (2) give an adverse inference instruction to the jury

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Individual defendant’s computer and cable modem

McKenna v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 2007 WL 433291 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based upon defendant?s claimed inability to retrieve the contents of plaintiff?s email account, where defendant had identified several older emails at the time of plaintiff?s discharge (to support its termination of plaintiff) but represented in discovery that its employees’ email accounts were overwritten beginning on the eighth day after a message was either sent or received and that no additional emails existed beyond those produced; court suggested that defendant investigate the matter and be prepared, if requested in discovery, to provide a further explanation of the apparent discrepancy between its ability to retrieve emails at the time of plaintiff?s discharge and its current ability to do so

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, P.A., 2007 WL 773722 (D. Kan. Mar. 9, 2007)

Key Insight: Where court had earlier ordered production and inspection of defendants’ computer, but had also entered a protective order governing such production and inspection, court declined to sanction defendants and found that the most “just manner” to apportion fees and costs was for each of the parties to pay their own

Nature of Case: Plaintiffs claimed defendants wrongfully disclosed plaintiffs’ confidential medical information stored on a computer hard drive by placing the computer on the curb for trash disposal

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive of subject computer

Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 1113800 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and denied defendant’s request to shift costs of production to plaintiff, since defendant provided no information about whether and how such information was “inaccessible” or any other information relevant to cost-shifting determination under Zubulake III; court encouraged parties to agree on most efficient means of production and noted that plaintiff had indicated willingness to provide high capacity storage devices

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Adult video content; website traffic information

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