Catagory:Case Summaries

1
MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3010343 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)
2
Network Sys. Architects Corp. v. Dimitruk, 2007 WL 4442349 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2007)
3
Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)
4
Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)
5
Albertson v. Albertson, 73 Va. Cir. 94, 2007 WL 6013036 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2007)
6
Memry Corp. v. Ky. Oil Tech., N.V., 2007 WL 832937 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2007) (not for citation)
7
Goss Int’l Ams., Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 161684 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2007)
8
ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)
9
Amersham Biosciences Corp. v. PerkinElmer, Inc, 2007 WL 842038 (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2007) (Unpublished)
10
Synergy Tech & Design Inc. v. Terry, 2007 WL 1288464 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2007)

MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3010343 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Where parties had no prior agreement about the manner in which documents and ESI were to be produced and plaintiff did not specify format in requests for production, court found that defendants had the right under Rule 34 to choose the option of producing their documents and ESI as kept in the usual course of business and declined to order defendants to identify by Bates Numbers the documents and ESI that were responsive to each particular request for production

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Documents and ESI

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

Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Key Insight: Where non-party used outside computer firm to handle its electronic data and estimated that cost to comply with subpoena would be $7,200, court found that data was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but ordered production in light of good cause shown, with cost of production to be paid by party who issued subpoena

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Routine business documents stored electronically

Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for TRO/preliminary injunction, court also ordered counsel to confer and suggest within ten days an agreeable method by which plaintiff, through its computer forensics expert or otherwise, may access and permanently delete or retrieve its information from defendant’s portable external hard drive and personal computer which were in court’s custody

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Business data; laptop and portable hard drive

Albertson v. Albertson, 73 Va. Cir. 94, 2007 WL 6013036 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2007)

Key Insight: Where issuance of a court order granting defendant the authority to access plaintiff?s password protected files already in defendant?s possession did not require plaintiff to perform a testimonial act, court held plaintiff?s assertion of Fifth amendment right did not bar court from granting defendant?s motion

Nature of Case: Divorce

Electronic Data Involved: Password protected computer files

Memry Corp. v. Ky. Oil Tech., N.V., 2007 WL 832937 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2007) (not for citation)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for access to defendant’s computer hard drives because computer content was not inextricably related to the basis of the lawsuit, defendant had represented that it conducted reasonable search of its computer hard drives for responsive information and moving party could point to only two missing emails out of thousands that were produced, and fact discovery had closed

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Goss Int’l Ams., Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 161684 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered Swiss defendants to produce all documents relating to their contacts with the United States, including email, and further ordered that such email and any attachments be produced in native format as specified in the request for production

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

ACS Consultant Co., Inc. v. Williams, 2007 WL 674608 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court quashed subpoena issued by plaintiff directing YAHOO! Inc. to produce all emails sent or received by individual defendant during specific time period in light of privacy and privilege concerns, but advised that plaintiff could obtain a new subpoena that was limited in scope

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Amersham Biosciences Corp. v. PerkinElmer, Inc, 2007 WL 842038 (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2007) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that portion of its January 31, 2007 order adopting magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff had waived any privilege that may have applied to the 37 Non-Lotus Notes Documents

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Synergy Tech & Design Inc. v. Terry, 2007 WL 1288464 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants produced only 82 pages of emails without their attachments, and the record indicated that other responsive material existed, including the email attachments and data being mined by forensic expert hired by defendant, court found that defendants had not fully complied with prior discovery order, imposed monetary sanctions, and ordered defendant to produce additional documents and/or provide declarations detailing their specific efforts to locate responsive material

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments and other data obtained through forensic means

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