Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)
2
Goldman v. Healthcare Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 3589065 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006)
3
PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006)
4
Kemper Mortgage, Inc. v. Russell, 2006 WL 4968120 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2006)
5
MarketRx, Inc. v. Turner, 2006 WL 851930 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Mar. 31, 2006) (Unpublished)
6
New World Sys. Corp. v. Jones, 2006 WL 1234901 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2006)
7
Corporate Healthcare Fin., Inc. v. Breedlove, 2006 WL 2400073 (Md. Cir. Ct. Apr. 19, 2006)
8
Tekena USA, LLC v. Fisher, 2006 WL 2536631 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2006)
9
S.E.C. v. Brady, 2006 WL 3301865 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2006)
10
Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 3388502 (D. Kan. Nov. 21, 2006)

Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)

Key Insight: Defendant’s motion to compel production of plaintiff’s hard drive for inspection denied, since defendant “provided no justification for so broad or invasive a request” and there was no showing that the request was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s hard drive

Goldman v. Healthcare Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 3589065 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence, concluding that, although defendants may have been negligent in their deletion of lines of source code, the record did not support a finding of bad faith or prejudice

Nature of Case: Unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Kemper Mortgage, Inc. v. Russell, 2006 WL 4968120 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff presented convincing evidence at preliminary injunction hearing of defendant’s intentional spoliation of evidence, including his installation of file ?shredder? program on laptop computer the day before litigation was filed and under threat of its commencement, court allowed inference that that considerably more evidence of misconduct would have been found without the spoliation and granted preliminary injunction barring defendant from, among other things, destroying or deleting relevant ESI

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer

MarketRx, Inc. v. Turner, 2006 WL 851930 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Mar. 31, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to quash as overbroad plaintiff?s subpoena to current employer of defendant which sought, among other things: documents and information describing any type of work that defendant performed, including solicitations and proposals, all documents and communications (including emails) he sent or received, and every computer or electronic equipment and he touched, including all backups, as well as extensive information about current employer’s practices and policies regarding document retention and computer backup; court further granted motion to compel defendant to produce similar information; parties to observe confidentiality order

Nature of Case: Action by employer against former employee based upon non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and electronic equipment “touched” by former employee; email

New World Sys. Corp. v. Jones, 2006 WL 1234901 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2006)

Key Insight: Court set hearing date for plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for expedited discovery; plaintiff agreed to allow defense counsel access to laptop computer that individual defendant possessed while in the employ of plaintiff, for the purpose of making a mirror image of the hard drive for examination by a computer forensics expert hired by defendant; court allowed defense counsel 14 days after the hard drive was “mirrored” to conduct expedited discovery subject to confidentiality order agreed to by parties

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of non-compete

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer

Corporate Healthcare Fin., Inc. v. Breedlove, 2006 WL 2400073 (Md. Cir. Ct. Apr. 19, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion for expedited, limited discovery relating to the fate of five emails containing proprietary and trade secret information, which were sent by defendant from his business email account to his personal email account before his termination; plaintiff allowed limited access to defendant’s personal email account and hard drive, and would be allowed to depose defendant regarding actions taken with respect to subject emails and attachments

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and attachments, personal computer hard drive

Tekena USA, LLC v. Fisher, 2006 WL 2536631 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2006)

Key Insight: District court affirmed bankruptcy court’s orders appointing a receiver to monitor debtor’s operations in order to preserve debtor’s assets, and restraining debtor from destroying any records or computer files, where trustee showed that, among other discovery abuses, the debtor’s business data contained on hard drives had been destroyed

Nature of Case: Appeal from bankruptcy court ruling

Electronic Data Involved: Business data on hard drives

S.E.C. v. Brady, 2006 WL 3301865 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2006)

Key Insight: Court sustained objection to portion of defendant’s subpoena based on undue burden, where potentially responsive electronic data was estimated to be 32,222,000 pages and there were over 226 boxes of hard copy documents, and vast majority of responsive documents were in the possession of the SEC and had either already been produced by the SEC to Brady, or would shortly be produced

Nature of Case: Securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic data

Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL 3388502 (D. Kan. Nov. 21, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of email from over 450 employees, finding the request unduly burdensome and not necessary or appropriate for class certification discovery; search was estimated to cost between $600,000 and $1,181,700, and the 21 search terms selected by plaintiffs were likely too common (e.g., ?dollars,? ?complaint,? and ?services?)

Nature of Case: Consumer class action

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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