Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2006 WL 798991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2006)
2
Orbit Elecs., Inc. v. Helm Instrument Co., 2006 WL 1281038 (Ohio Ct. App. May 11, 2006)
3
On Time Aviation, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 2006 WL 2092075 (D. Conn. July 26, 2006)
4
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)
5
Kay S. v. Mark S., 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)
6
Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 3371576 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006)
7
Interbake Foods, LLC v. Tomaseillo, 461 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2006)
8
Dehart v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, L.P., 2006 WL 83406 (W.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2006)
9
Kiliszek v. Nelson, Watson & Assocs., LLC, 2006 WL 335788 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2006)
10
Select Med. Corp. v. Hardaway, 2006 WL 859741 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006)

Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2006 WL 798991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2006)

Key Insight: Finding that requested documents were relevant and properly discoverable, court granted motion to compel production of various financial records, including an electronic copy of party’s Quickbooks files, and ordered that the records be produced under protective order in a form agreed to by the parties

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, unfair business practices, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of Quickbooks files

Orbit Elecs., Inc. v. Helm Instrument Co., 2006 WL 1281038 (Ohio Ct. App. May 11, 2006)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny defendant’s motion to compel production of complete copy of plaintiff’s QuickBooks system, where request was made on first day of jury trial and could have come before, plaintiff had already provided a considerable amount of documents to defendant in discovery, and defendant was unable to show that court acted arbitrarily in denying its motion or that information sought would have done anything to bolster its case

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of loyalty and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: QuickBooks data

On Time Aviation, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 2006 WL 2092075 (D. Conn. July 26, 2006)

Key Insight: Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate’s discovery rulings, concluding that absence of particular email from production did not mean that expert had intentionally hidden or destroyed it, particularly when expert was not listed as a recipient and testified that he did not recall receiving it

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 WL 2506771 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ appeal of magistrate’s order and would permit plaintiffs to raise evidentiary objections to certain evidence at trial, notwithstanding terms of pretrial order which required in limine motions to be filed by certain date, since defendants’ tardy production of hundreds of responsive emails and/or non-compliance with discovery orders made it impossible for plaintiffs to raise those objections as motions in limine

Nature of Case: Beneficiaries of employment benefit health plans asserted class action claims under ERISA

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kay S. v. Mark S., 142 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)

Key Insight: Appellate court found there was appearance of impropriety which warranted trial judge’s disqualification; on remand, new judge to consider, among other things, mother’s request for production of hard drive from father’s work computer

Nature of Case: Divorce proceedings

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 3371576 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant demonstrated that serious questions existed both as to the reliability and the completeness of materials produced in discovery by plaintiff, including the possible alteration of email, court concluded that forensic examination of defendant’s hard drives was warranted; court ordered counsel for the parties to meet and confer regarding a protocol for the imaging and subsequent production of responsive documents

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives; email

Interbake Foods, LLC v. Tomaseillo, 461 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2006)

Key Insight: Court entered preliminary injunction enjoining former employee from violating his confidentiality agreement and ordering him to preserve “all information currently stored on his personal computers, personal digital assistant, mobile telephone, including any information stored on backup media for a period of 180 days”; order also required employee’s new employer to preserve all information currently stored on its computers relating in any way to its recruitment and employment of the defendant, or its ice cream sandwich wafer operations, during the pendency of the litigation

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files containing sensitive product information

Kiliszek v. Nelson, Watson & Assocs., LLC, 2006 WL 335788 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) motion to delay adjudication of summary judgment motion to allow further discovery where collection agency did not retain hard copies of collection letters but instead noted the nature and types of letters on a debtor overview report and saved copies of form letters, and where dispute existed over whether an exhibit submitted in support of defendant’s motion was an accurate reproduction of defendant’s initial communication to plaintiff or a fabrication

Nature of Case: Debtor sued collection agency under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer record of collection activity and form letters

Select Med. Corp. v. Hardaway, 2006 WL 859741 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation inference based upon former employee’s deletion of files on home computer, since plaintiff could not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from alleged spoliation or show that former employee was “at fault” for deleting the files, i.e., that he intended to impair plaintiff’s ability to uncover evidence; employee claimed to have deleted the files to ensure that he no longer had access to plaintiff’s information after he resigned his employment

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Files on former employee’s home computer

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