Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Vaughn v. City of Puyallup, 2007 WL 3306743 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2007)
2
APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)
3
Network Sys. Architects Corp. v. Dimitruk, 2007 WL 4442349 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2007)
4
In re EZ Pay Servs., Inc., 380 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)
5
Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 WL 1424552 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007)
6
ISO Claims Servs., Inc., ACI Div. v. Appraisal.com, Inc., 2007 WL 809684 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2007)
7
G.D. v. Monarch Plastic Surgery, P.A., 2007 WL 201154 (D. Kan. Jan. 24, 2007)
8
Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc., 2007 WL 781254 (E.D. Mo. Mar 12, 2007)
9
Wood Group Pressure Control, L.P. v. B & B Oilfield Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 1076702 (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2007)
10
Woodburn Const. Co. v. Encon Pacific, LLC, 2007 WL 1287845 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2007)

Vaughn v. City of Puyallup, 2007 WL 3306743 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff contended that defendant had not thoroughly searched its electronic storage network or devices for relevant documents, court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to conduct and document a further comprehensive search since plaintiff failed to cite authority for proposition that court should enforce plaintiff?s subjective notion of how defendant should conduct discovery: ?Defendant is under a duty to produce all relevant documents. Defendant is not under a duty to comply with every discovery procedure requested by Plaintiff.?

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)

Key Insight: Court approved plaintiff’s fee petition and awarded $79,606 in attorneys’ fees and $19,856 in expenses, for a total of $99,462, as sanction for defendant’s intentional destruction of laptop computer

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

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Network Sys. Architects Corp. v. Dimitruk, 2007 WL 4442349 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Where former employee admitted using file shredder program on his NSA-issued laptop before returning it, and evidence showed use of file shredder program on competitor-issued laptop computer, court found defendants? conduct was ?egregious? and amounted to spoliation but denied plaintiff?s request for entry of default judgment; court instead ordered production of computer hard drive for further examination, dismissed defendants? counterclaims, and ordered defendants to pay attorneys? fees and expenses incurred as a result of defendants? misconduct

Nature of Case: Seller of computer hardware and software sued former employee and competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

In re EZ Pay Servs., Inc., 380 B.R. 861 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007)

Key Insight: Court approved Trustee?s request for permission to pay computer forensics expert $70,000 as a necessary cost and expense of preserving the estate, where recovery of deleted electronic information was necessary to enable Trustee to locate and administer valuable assets of estate and to understand debtor’s prepetition transactions, and where expert?s services provided a concrete benefit for the estate since approximately $400,000 in assets was recovered by Trustee as a result

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy case

Electronic Data Involved: 14 hard drives; deleted data

Williams v. Armstrong, 2007 WL 1424552 (W.D. Mich. May 14, 2007)

Key Insight: District Court sustained plaintiff?s objection to magistrate judge?s discovery order to the extent that factual findings omitted consideration of an exhibit submitted with plaintiff?s motion, which constituted evidence of defendant?s past possession of email which should have been produced in response to a particular discovery request (the exhibit was an email that discussed at least one prior email which was not produced); court remanded to magistrate judge issue of whether to compel further response or production in response to that particular discovery request

Nature of Case: Prisoner asserted claims relating to prison’s Kosher Meal Program

Electronic Data Involved: Email

ISO Claims Servs., Inc., ACI Div. v. Appraisal.com, Inc., 2007 WL 809684 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that it was willing to produce documents that were the subject of defendant’s motion to compel, but had been waiting for a response from defense counsel as to how to best produce electronic documents (which formed the bulk of the production), court set date for production and expressed hope that “the parties will be able to work out how best to produce documents contained in electronic format on their own”

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc., 2007 WL 781254 (E.D. Mo. Mar 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defense expert witnesses testified that defense counsel prepared the first drafts of reports, and revisions and changes were often exchanged through email, and plaintiff contended that it could not tell whether all drafts were produced, nor could it tell who created and/or revised each draft, court ordered defendant to produce copies of all drafts of all expert opinions, together with all communications between defendant?s employees or counsel and expert witnesses regarding the drafts; court further ordered defendant to provide a declaration of counsel confirming full production and explaining the chronology of the revisions and the author of each set of revisions; declaration would be binding on defendant and could be used for cross-examination of expert witnesses

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and draft expert reports

Wood Group Pressure Control, L.P. v. B & B Oilfield Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 1076702 (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2007)

Key Insight: Court directed defense counsel to file supplemental memorandum regarding her communications with defendant regarding supplemental discovery responses and preservation of evidence and to provide documentation of same for in camera inspection; court further directed defendant to make available key player’s hard drive for forensic examination

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Drawings; hard drive

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